***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 Chinese RCTs involving 158 women were included in this review. Although both these trials described adequate methodology they were of limited quality. Neither trial compared CHM with placebo treatment. There was no evidence of a significant difference in rates of symptomatic relief between CHM and gestrinone administered subsequent to laparoscopic surgery (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.18). There was no significant difference between the CHM and gestrinone groups with regard to the total pregnancy rate (69.6% versus 59.1%; RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.59, one RCT). CHM administered orally and then in conjunction with a herbal enema resulted in a greater proportion of women obtaining symptomatic relief than with danazol (RR 5.06, 95% CI 1.28 to 20.05; RR 5.63, 95% CI 1.47 to 21.54, respectively). Oral plus enema administration of CHM resulted in a greater reduction in average dysmenorrhoea pain scores than did danazol (mean difference (MD) -2.90, 95% CI -4.55 to -1.25).  For lumbosacral pain, rectal discomfort, or vaginal nodules tenderness, there was no significant difference between CHM and danazol. Overall, 100% of women in both studies showed some improvement in their symptoms. Women taking CHM had fewer side effects than those taking either gestrinone or danazol. Post-surgical administration of CHM may have comparable benefits to gestrinone. Oral CHM may have a better overall treatment effect than danazol and it may be more effective in relieving dysmenorrhoea when used in conjunction with a CHM enema. CHM appears to have fewer side effects than either gestrinone or danazol. However, more rigorous research is required to accurately assess the potential role of CHM in treating endometriosis.
Output:

The two small studies in this review suggest that Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) may be as effective as gestrinone and may be more effective than danazol in relieving endometriosis-related pain, with fewer side effects than experienced with conventional treatment. However, the two trials included in this review were small and of limited quality so these findings must be interpreted cautiously. Better quality randomised controlled trials are needed to investigate a possible role for CHM in the treatment of endometriosis.