***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 six trials involving 1270 participants in the review: three trials involving 686 participants compared routine shunting with no shunting, one trial involving 200 participants compared routine shunting with selective shunting, one trial involving 253 participants compared selective shunting with and without near-infrared refractory spectroscopy monitoring, and the other trial involving 131 participants compared shunting with a combination of electroencephalographic and carotid pressure measurement with shunting by carotid pressure measurement alone. In general, reporting of methodology in the included studies was poor. For most studies, the blinding of outcome assessors and the report of prespecified outcomes were unclear. For routine versus no shunting, there was no significant difference in the rate of all stroke, ipsilateral stroke or death up to 30 days after surgery, although data were limited. No significant difference was found between the groups in terms of postoperative neurological deficit between selective shunting with and without near-infrared refractory spectroscopy monitoring, However, this analysis was inadequately powered to reliably detect the effect. There was no significant difference between the risk of ipsilateral stroke in participants selected for shunting with the combination of electroencephalographic and carotid pressure assessment compared with pressure assessment alone, although again the data were limited. This review concluded that the data available were too limited to either support or refute the use of routine or selective shunting in carotid endarterectomy. Large scale randomised trials of routine shunting versus selective shunting are required. No method of monitoring in selective shunting has been shown to produce better outcomes.
Output:

We identified six studies up to August 2013, for inclusion in the review. These studies included a total of 1270 participants. Three of the trials compared routine shunting with no shunting, one trial compared routine shunting versus selective shunting, and another two trials compared different methods of monitoring in selective shunting. We have not yet identified any trials that compared selective shunting with no shunting. All the included trials assessed the use of shunting in people undergoing endarterectomy under general anaesthetic. The age of the participants ranged from 40 to 89 years, and overall, there were more male than female participants. Where reported, participants were followed up for no longer than 30 days. There is still no evidence for the use of a carotid shunt during carotid endarterectomy. This review suggests a benefit from the use of a shunt, but the overall results were not statistically significant. More trials are needed. There were significant problems with the quality of the randomised trials and, overall, the reporting of study methodology was poor.