***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 no new studies for inclusion in this update. In total we included one trial, excluded 18 trials, classed one trial as ongoing, and classed another as awaiting classification. The total number of participants in the included trial was 10, and the methodological quality of this trial was moderate because of high risk of bias in relation to two domains (random sequence generation and allocation concealment) but low risk of bias for the four remaining domains (blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and any other bias). The included trial was a short-term cross-over randomised trial undertaken in Canada, which tested the effects of adding three seemingly identical prosthetic weights (150 g vs 770 g vs 1625 g) to the prostheses of a total of 10 participants with unilateral dysvascular transfemoral amputation. Eight participants were over 60 years of age. Trial authors found that four participants preferred the addition of the lightest weight (150 g), five preferred the middle weight (770 g), and one preferred the heaviest weight (1625 g). Researchers interpreted this as equating to user satisfaction (success) and reported no adverse effects. The limited evidence presented in this review is of very low quality and is insufficient to inform the choice of prosthetic rehabilitation, including the optimum weight of the prosthesis, after unilateral transfemoral amputation in older dysvascular people. A programme of research that includes randomised controlled trials to examine key interventions is urgently required in this area.
Output:

Reviewers found only one controlled trial of moderate methodological quality (most recent search, 14 June 2018). This trial had a cross-over design, and each of the 10 participants had three seemingly identical prosthetic weights added to the prosthesis below the knee in random order. All artificial limbs were modular-style prostheses. The participants - nine men and one woman - were over 50 years of age, and eight were over 60 years old. Over the few hours of the trial, four participants preferred the lightest weight (150 g), five preferred the medium weight (770 g), and one preferred the heaviest weight (1625 g). Seven of the 10 people successfully ranked the weights from lightest to heaviest. The weights did not alter participants' walking speed in a two-minute walk test. Study authors reported no adverse effects. The inclusion of only one trial with a small number of participants, short exposure to different weights in a laboratory setting, and the fact that there were differences in weight between people and their prostheses limit the usefulness of these findings. The limited evidence included in this review is of very low quality and is insufficient to inform the choice of prosthetic rehabilitation, including optimum weight of the prosthesis, after unilateral transfemoral amputation in older dysvascular people.