***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: There were a total of 19 trials that met inclusion criteria and that had data sufficient for analysis. Thirteen trials reported sufficient information to use a global rating of improvement and nine trials provided information on a comprehensive rating scale. Three trials provided both outcome measures. It was not possible to use many of the published results in a combined analysis owing to the lack of sufficient data to perform statistical analyses. For the 12 trials that used global ratings, there was a significant effect favouring hydergine (OR 3.78, 95% CI, 2.72 to 5.27). For the nine trials that used comprehensive ratings, there was a significant mean difference favouring hydergine (WMD 0.96, 95%CI, 0.54 to 1.37). Hydergine was well tolerated in these trials, with 78% of randomized subjects available for data analyses. Greater effect sizes on global ratings were associated with younger age, and possibly higher dose, although most of the subgroup analyses were statistically insignificant. As in an earlier systematic review, we found hydergine to show significant treatment effects when assessed by either global ratings or comprehensive rating scales (based here on a smaller set of trials than in the earlier published systematic review because trials were required to have data that could conform with MetaView, the Cochrane Collaboration statistics software). The small number of trials available for analysis, however, limited the ability of subgroup analyses to identify statistically significant moderating effects. Unfortunately, most of the randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled trials of hydergine were conducted and published before the advent of consensus-based diagnostic standards of dementia in 1984; therefore diagnostic criteria were less specific. As a result, uncertainty remains regarding hydergine's efficacy in dementia.
Output:

The statistical evidence for efficacy in 'possible or probable Alzheimer's disease' patients was so modest however that one additional statistically non-significant trial would have reduced the results to non significance; evidence for efficacy in vascular dementia rested on relatively stronger effects for hydergine on clinical ratings; and effective doses may be higher than 3 mg/d (i.e., than that currently approved in the USA). Despite its availability for 40 years, the circumstances of hydergine's efficacy in dementia syndromes have not been adequately researched, and have yet to be precisely defined.