***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: The updated search resulted in no new trials meeting the inclusion criteria of this review, thus leaving it to the seven already included randomised trials (six evaluating ursodeoxycholic acid versus placebo or no intervention, and one evaluating tauro-ursodeoxycholic acid versus no intervention) enrolling a total of 335 participants. The administration of bile acids began one day or more after liver transplantation. All patients received the standard triple-drug immunosuppressive regimen (steroids, azathioprine, and cyclosporine or tacrolimus) to suppress the allograft rejection response after liver transplantation. Bile acids compared with placebo or no intervention did not significantly change all-cause mortality (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.36), mortality related to allograft rejection (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.12), retransplantation (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.20 to 2.86), acute cellular rejection, or number of patients with steroid-resistant rejection. Bile acids significantly reduced the number of patients who had chronic rejection in a fixed-effect model but not in a random-effects model meta-analysis. Bile acids were safe and well tolerated by liver-transplanted patients. However, this observation is based on data analysis from three trials with only 187 patients. We did not find evidence to support or refute bile acids for liver-transplanted patients. Further randomised trials are necessary before bile acids can be recommended to liver-transplanted patients.
Output:

Results of the seven randomised clinical trials included in the review in which patients received standard immunosuppressive treatment (steroids, azathioprine, and cyclosporine or tacrolimus) with or without bile acids after liver transplantation, did not show any significant effects of bile acids on all-cause mortality, mortality related to rejection, acute cellular rejection, steroid resistant rejection, or need for retransplantation. One analysis suggested that bile acids might beneficially influence number of patients with chronic rejection, but was contradicted by the analyses. The evidence that the use of ursodeoxycholic acid might have beneficial effects on chronic rejection and length of hospitalisation is weak as it is produced from trials with high risk of bias and insufficient number of included patients. That bile acids seemed well tolerated, with no reports of serious adverse events, is good knowledge, but much more research is needed before their use is acquitted. None of the randomised clinical trials assessed the effects of bile acids on quality of life or cost-effectiveness.