***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 10 RCTs involving a total of 844 participants. The primary outcome was overall incidence of parastomal herniation. Secondary outcomes were rate of reoperation at 12 months, operative time, postoperative length of hospital stay, stoma-related infections, mesh-related infections, quality of life, and rehospitalisation rate. We judged the risk of bias across all domains to be low in six trials. We judged four trials to have an overall high risk of bias. The overall incidence of parastomal hernia was less in participants receiving a prophylactic mesh compared to those who had a standard ostomy formation (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.66; 10 studies, 771 participants; I2 = 69%; low-quality evidence). In absolute numbers, the incidence of parastomal hernia was 22 per 100 participants (18 to 27) receiving prophylactic mesh compared to 41 per 100 participants having a standard ostomy formation. There were no differences in the need for reoperation (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.64; 9 studies, 757 participants; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence); operative time (MD -6.50 (min), 95% CI -18.24 to 5.24; 6 studies, 671 participants; low-quality evidence); postoperative length of hospital stay (MD -0.95 (days), 95% CI -2.03 to 0.70; 4 studies, 500 participants; moderate-quality evidence); or stoma-related infections (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.32 to 2.50; 6 studies, 472 participants; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence) between the two groups. We were unable to analyse mesh-related infections, quality of life, and rehospitalisation rate due to sparse data or because the outcome was not reported in the included studies. This Cochrane Review included 10 RCTs with a total of 844 participants. The review demonstrated a reduction in the incidence of parastomal hernia in people who had a prophylactic synthetic mesh placed at the time of the index operation compared to a standard ostomy formation. However, our confidence in this estimate is low due to the presence of a large degree of clinical heterogeneity, as well as high variability in follow-up duration and technique of parastomal herniation detection. We found the rate of stoma-related infection to be similar in both the intervention and control groups.
Output:

Following our data search in January 2018, we included 10 trials with a total of 844 participants, which we assessed using the standard Cochrane Review protocol. The trials compared the incidence of hernia development around a stoma between a group having a mesh placement at the time of stoma formation and a control group having a conventional stoma formation without mesh placement. We found that mesh placement around the stoma at the time of stoma formation reduces the incidence of future hernia formation. The participants having a mesh fitted had a similar level of complications as those not having a mesh. We found low-quality evidence favouring the insertion of a mesh into people having a stoma.