***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: Two RCTs were included in the review (106 participants). Neither study reported live birth rate. Vitrification was associated with an increased clinical pregnancy rate compared to slow freezing (RR 3.86, 95% CI 1.63 to 9.11, P = 0.002, 2 RCTs, 106 women, I2 = 8%, moderate quality evidence). The effect of vitrification compared to slow freezing on ongoing pregnancy rates was only reported in one small study, with inconclusive findings (RR 6.07, 95% CI 0.86 to 43.04, P = 0.07, one RCT, 28 women, low quality evidence). No data were reported on adverse effects, nor were any other outcomes reported in the included trials. The evidence was limited by imprecision. We assessed the included studies as at low to unclear risk of bias as the methods were not well described. Oocyte vitrification compared to slow freezing probably increases clinical pregnancy rates in women undergoing assisted reproduction. However, the total number of women and pregnancies were low and the imprecision is high which limits applicability. The effect on ongoing pregnancy is uncertain as data were sparse. No data were available on live births or adverse effects.
Output:

Characteristics of the included studies. The search of the medical literature was done in March 2014. We found two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with 106 participants comparing oocyte vitrification versus slow freezing. Neither study reported live births or adverse events as outcomes. One reported ongoing pregnancy and both reported clinical pregnancy. Key results. The clinical pregnancy rate was higher in the oocyte vitrification group than in the slow freezing group. The effect of vitrification compared to slow freezing on ongoing pregnancy rates was only reported in the one small study, with inconclusive findings. Quality of the evidence. The quality of the evidence was rated as moderate for clinical pregnancy and low for ongoing pregnancy. The evidence was limited by imprecision.