***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: Six trials involving 988 patients (645 women and 343 men) and reporting eight comparisons were found. Two studies reported withdrawals and dropouts, but none mentioned analysis by intention to treat (ITT). 5-FU presented better results for cure than placebo or no treatment (relative risk (RR) 0.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23 to 0.67), meta-cresol-sulfonic acid (MCSA) (RR 2.11, 95% CI 0.83 to 5.37), Podophylin 2%, 4% or 25% (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.82). There were no statistical differences for treatment failure for 5-FU versus CO2 Laser (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.11) versus 5-FU + INFα-2a (low dose) (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.119). Worse results were found for 5-FU versus 5-FU + INFα-2a (high dose) (RR 10.78, 95% CI 1.50 to 77.36), and 5-FU + CO2 Laser INFα-2a (high dose) (RR 7.97, 95% CI 2.87 to 22.13). The reviewed trials were highly variable in methods and quality, and the evidence provided by these studies was weak. Cure rates with several treatments were variable, and although 5-FU presents therapeutic results that are inferior to those seen with 5-FU + Inf α-2a (high dose) and 5-FU + CO2 Laser + Inf α-2a (high dose), the treatment should not be abandoned. Topical treatment with 5-FU has a therapeutic effect; however, the benefits and risks have not been determined clearly and further studies are needed.
Output:

This review evaluated the effectiveness and safety of topical 5-FU for treatment of genital warts in nonimmunocompromised individuals. Evidence from the studies we reviewed showed that 5-FU had better results for cure than placebo or no treatment; MCSA; and Podophylin 2%, 4% or 25%. No statistical difference was found when 5-FU was compared with CO2 Laser treatment, and results were poor when 5-FU was compared with 5-FU + INFα-2a (high dose) or 5-FU + CO2 Laser INFα-2a (high dose). The weak point of this review was the great variability in the methods and quality of the studies that we included.