***TASK***
the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature

***INPUT***
the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature

***OUTPUT***
the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature

***DOCUMENTATION***

***EXAMPLES***

Input: Five studies treated 177 participants with painful diabetic neuropathy (104) or postherpetic neuralgia (73). The mean or median ages in the studies were 55 to 72 years. Four studies used a cross-over, and one a parallel group design; 145 participants were randomised to receive desipramine 12.5 mg to 250 mg daily, with most taking 100 mg to 150 mg daily following titration. Comparators were placebo in three studies (an 'active placebo' in two studies), fluoxetine, clomipramine (one study each), and amitriptyline (two studies), and treatment was for two to six weeks. All studies had one or more sources of potential major bias. No study provided first or second tier evidence for any outcome. No data were available on the proportion of people with at least 50% or 30% reduction in pain, but data were available from three studies for our other primary outcome of Patient Global Impression of Change, reported as patient evaluation of pain relief that was 'complete' or 'a lot'. No pooling of data was possible, but third tier evidence in individual studies indicated some improvement in pain relief with desipramine compared with placebo, although this was very low quality evidence, derived mainly from group mean data and completer analyses in small, short duration studies where major bias was possible. There were too few participants in comparisons of desipramine with another active treatment to draw any conclusions. All studies reported some information about adverse events, but reporting was inconsistent and fragmented. Participants taking desipramine experienced more adverse events, and a higher rate of withdrawal due to adverse events, than did participants taking placebo (very low quality evidence). This review found little evidence to support the use of desipramine to treat neuropathic pain. There was very low quality evidence of benefit and harm, but this came from studies that were methodologically flawed and potentially subject to major bias. Effective medicines with much greater supportive evidence are available. There may be a role for desipramine in patients who have not obtained pain relief from other treatments.
Output:

Five small studies, each with 24 to 54 participants, included 177 participants in total with painful diabetic neuropathy or postherpetic neuralgia. Studies were randomised and double-blind, but all had one or more sources of potential major bias that could lead to overestimation of efficacy. It was not possible to combine information from the different studies, but individually they indicated some benefit from desipramine (usually at a dose between 100 mg and 150 mg daily), compared with placebo, at the expense of increased adverse events. There was not enough information about other comparators to draw any conclusions. There was too little information, which was of inadequate quality, to be sure that desipramine works as a pain medicine in painful diabetic neuropathy or postherpetic neuralgia, and no information about other types of neuropathic pain. Other medicines have been shown to be effective as treatments of first choice.