***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 identified 15 studies (1550 patients). CRRT did not differ from IRRT with respect to in-hospital mortality (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.12), ICU mortality (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.26), number of surviving patients not requiring RRT (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.07), haemodynamic instability (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.28) or hypotension (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.16) and need for escalation of pressor therapy (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.08). Patients on CRRT were likely to have significantly higher mean arterial pressure (MAP) (MD 5.35, 95% CI 1.41 to 9.29) and higher risk of clotting dialysis filters (RR, 95% CI 8.50 CI 1.14 to 63.33). In patients who are haemodynamically stable, the RRT modality does not appear to influence important patient outcomes, and therefore the preference for CRRT over IRRT in such patients does not appear justified in the light of available evidence. CRRT was shown to achieve better haemodynamic parameters such as MAP. Future research should focus on factors such as the dose of dialysis and evaluation of newer promising hybrid technologies such as SLED. Triallists should follow the recommendations regarding clinical endpoints assessment in RCTs in ARF made by the Working Group of the Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative Working Group.
Output:

Our systematic review identified 15 randomised studies with 1550 patients comparing CRRT with IRRT. We did not find any difference between CRRT and IRRT with respect to mortality, renal recovery, and risk of haemodynamic instability or hypotension episodes.