***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: Three trials involving a total of 404, mainly female and older, people with displaced fractures of the distal radius were included. These failed to assess functional outcome, and only one trial reported on complications. One trial found no statistically significant differences between mechanical reduction using finger trap traction and manual reduction in anatomical outcomes. All participants of this trial were given intravenous regional anaesthesia. One trial compared a novel method of manual reduction where the non-anaesthetised patient actively provided counter-traction versus traditional manual reduction under intravenous regional anaesthesia. While participants of the novel method group suffered more, yet not intolerable, pain during the reduction procedure, the latter was shorter in duration. No differences in anatomical outcome were detected. The third study compared mechanical reduction involving a special device without anaesthesia versus manual reduction under haematoma block (local anaesthesia). Less pain during the reduction procedure was recorded for the mechanical traction group. Both methods yielded similar radiological results. Fewer participants of the mechanical traction group had signs of neurological impairment, mainly finger numbness, at five weeks but this difference was not statistically significant by one year. There was insufficient evidence from comparisons tested within randomised controlled trials to establish the relative effectiveness of different methods of closed reduction used in the treatment of displaced fractures of the distal radius in adults.
Output:

Three randomised controlled trials involving a total of 404, mainly female and older, people with displaced fractures of the distal radius are included in this review. None of the trials assessed functional outcome, and only one trial reported on complications. Each trial compared different methods of reduction. One trial, in which all participants had intravenous regional anaesthesia, found no significant differences in anatomical outcomes between mechanical reduction using finger trap traction and manual reduction. The second trial compared two methods of manual reduction. These were a novel method of manual reduction where participants actively provided counter-traction without being given anaesthesia versus traditional manual reduction under intravenous regional anaesthesia. The participants of the novel method group suffered more but not intolerable pain during the reduction procedure, which was shorter in duration. No differences in anatomical outcome were detected. The third trial compared mechanical reduction involving a special device without anaesthesia versus manual reduction under haematoma block (local anaesthesia). Less pain during the reduction procedure was recorded for the mechanical traction group. Both methods yielded similar anatomical results. Fewer participants of the mechanical traction group had signs of neurological impairment, mainly finger numbness, at five weeks but this difference was not statistically significant by one year. The review concluded that there was not enough evidence to decide whether there was any difference between the various methods tested.