***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: We found no RCTs or quasi-RCTs in the original review or updates in 20011 and 2012. Cure or improvement have been described in high quality observational studies:  (1) A single study describes spontaneous improvement of meralgia paraesthetica in 20 (69%) of 29 cases.  (2) Four studies evaluating the injection of corticosteroid and local anaesthetic found cure or improvement in 130 (83%) out of a combined total of 157 cases.  (3) Surgical treatments have been found to be beneficial in 264 (88%) out of 300 cases treated with decompression (nine studies); and 45 (94%) out of 48 cases treated with neurectomy (three studies).  (4) Ninety-nine (97%) out of 102 patients with iatrogenic meralgia paraesthetica recovered completely (three studies). In the absence of any published RCTs or quasi-RCTs, the objective evidence base for treatment choices in meralgia paraesthetica is weak. High quality observational studies report comparable high improvement rates for meralgia paraesthetica following local injection of corticosteroid and surgical interventions (either nerve decompression or neurectomy). However, a similar outcome has been reported without any intervention in a single natural history study.
Output:

We found no randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the original review or when searches were updated in 2010 and 2012. Local injections of corticosteroid and surgical operations were found to be effective treatments in observational studies. However, a single observational study also showed that meralgia paraesthetica improved spontaneously in the majority of cases. RCTs of treatments for meralgia paraesthetica are needed.