***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 three randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of rhIGF-I, involving 779 participants, for inclusion in the analysis. In a European trial (183 participants) the mean difference (MD) in change in AALSRS total score after nine months was -3.30 (95% confidence interval (CI) -8.68 to 2.08). In a North American trial (266 participants), the MD after nine months was -6.00 (95% CI -10.99 to -1.01). The combined analysis from both RCTs showed a MD after nine months of -4.75 (95% CI -8.41 to -1.09), a significant difference in favour of the treated group. The secondary outcome measures showed non-significant trends favouring rhIGF-I. There was an increased risk of injection site reactions with rhIGF-I (risk ratio 1.26, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.54). . A second North American trial (330 participants) used a novel primary end point involving manual muscle strength testing. No differences were demonstrated between the treated and placebo groups in this study. All three trials were at high risk of bias. Meta-analysis revealed a significant difference in favour of rhIGF-I treatment; however, the quality of the evidence from the two included trials was low. A third study showed no difference between treatment and placebo. There is no evidence for increase in survival with IGF1. All three included trials were at high risk of bias.
Output:

Three randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving 779 participants measured disease progression on special clinical rating scales of disease severity in ALS. The review authors collected data about adverse events from the included trials. The combined results from the two included studies that used the rating scale (AALSRS) showed a small significant benefit in favour of rhIGF-I. Significant flaws in the trial designs make the statistically significant benefits in some outcomes of questionable relevance. There was an increased risk of injection site reactions with rhIGF-I. A third study using a different outcome measure showed no difference between treatment and placebo. Taken together, the available RCTs do not provide information supporting the hypothesis that rhIGF-I is an effective disease modifying treatment for ALS. All three included studies showed a high risk of bias. These issues very seriously detracted from the ability of this review to fulfil its objectives.