***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: Twenty-five trials met the inclusion criteria. Twelve included rapid smoking and nine used other aversion methods. Ten trials included two or more conditions allowing assessment of a dose-response to aversive stimulation. The odds ratio (OR) for abstinence following rapid smoking compared to control was 2.01 (95% confidence intervals (CI): 1.36 to 2.95). Several factors suggest that this finding should be interpreted cautiously. A funnel plot of included studies was asymmetric, due to the relative absence of small studies with negative results. Most trials had a number of serious methodological problems likely to lead to spurious positive results. The only trial using biochemical validation of all self reported cessation gave a non-significant result. Other aversion methods were not shown to be effective (OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.82). There was a borderline dose-response to the level of aversive stimulation (OR 1.67, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.81). The existing studies provide insufficient evidence to determine the efficacy of rapid smoking, or whether there is a dose-response to aversive stimulation. Milder versions of aversive smoking seem to lack specific efficacy. Rapid smoking is an unproven method with sufficient indications of promise to warrant evaluation using modern rigorous methodology.
Output:

The results of the existing trials suggest that this may be effective, but the evidence is not conclusive because most of the studies of this approach have methodological problems. A recent laboratory study also suggests that the method has an active ingredient. Further research may be worthwhile.