***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 included one RCT which was a pilot study with 19 participants that compared HFNC therapy with oxygen delivery via a head box. In this study, we judged the risk of selection, attrition and reporting bias to be low, and we judged the risk of performance and detection bias to be unclear due to lack of blinding. The median oxygen saturation (SpO2) was higher in the HFNC group at eight hours (100% versus 96%, P = 0.04) and at 12 hours (99% versus 96%, P = 0.04) but similar at 24 hours. There was no clear evidence of a difference in total duration of oxygen therapy, time to discharge or total length of stay between groups. No adverse events were reported in either group and no participants in either group required further respiratory support. Five ongoing trials were identified but no data were available in May 2013. We were not able to perform a meta-analysis. There is insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of HFNC therapy for treating infants with bronchiolitis. The current evidence in this review is of low quality, from one small study with uncertainty about the estimates of effect and an unclear risk of performance and detection bias. The included study provides some indication that HFNC therapy is feasible and well tolerated. Further research is required to determine the role of HFNC in the management of bronchiolitis in infants. The results of the ongoing studies identified will contribute to the evidence in future updates of this review.
Output:

One study (19 participants) met our inclusion criteria. It showed that high-flow nasal cannula therapy is well tolerated as a treatment for bronchiolitis. Oxygen saturations (blood oxygen levels) were better at eight and 12 hours in participants receiving high-flow nasal cannula therapy than in those receiving oxygen therapy via a head box, but were similar between groups at 24 hours, although this may have been due to higher oxygen flow rates in the high-flow nasal cannula group. There was no clear evidence of a difference between the two groups in the duration of oxygen therapy, length of hospitalisation and time to discharge. No adverse events were reported in either group. There is insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of high-flow nasal cannula therapy for treating bronchiolitis in infants. The included study provides some indication that HFNC therapy is feasible and well tolerated. However, our evidence is based on one low-quality, small study with uncertainty about the effects and some possibility of bias arising from the study methods. Further research is required to determine the role of high-flow nasal cannula therapy in the management of bronchiolitis in infants. The results of six ongoing studies identified will contribute to the evidence in future updates of this review. The evidence is current to May 2013.