***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 randomised trials met our inclusion criteria; 16 parallel trials (977 infants) and four cross-over trials (88 infants). No studies were blinded and the quality of evidence for outcomes assessed varied from moderate to low. We found no difference in the primary outcome, death before hospital discharge, between VTV modes versus PLV modes (typical RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.07; low quality evidence). However, there was moderate quality evidence that the use of VTV modes resulted in a reduction in the primary outcome, death or BPD at 36 weeks' gestation (typical RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.89; typical NNTB 8, 95% CI 5 to 20) and the following secondary outcomes: rates of pneumothorax (typical RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.87; typical NNTB 20, 95% CI 11 to 100), mean days of mechanical ventilation (MD -1.35 days, 95% CI -1.83 to -0.86), rates of hypocarbia (typical RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.72; typical NNTB 3, 95% CI 2 to 5), rates of grade 3 or 4 intraventricular haemorrhage (typical RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.77; typical NNTB 11, 95% CI 7 to 25) and the combined outcome of periventricular leukomalacia with or without grade 3 or 4 intraventricular haemorrhage (typical RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.80; typical NNTB 11, 95% CI 7 to 33). VTV modes were not associated with any increased adverse outcomes. Infants ventilated using VTV modes had reduced rates of death or BPD, pneumothoraces, hypocarbia, severe cranial ultrasound pathologies and duration of ventilation compared with infants ventilated using PLV modes. Further studies are needed to identify whether VTV modes improve neurodevelopmental outcomes and to compare and refine VTV strategies.
Output:

In a search updated to January 2017, review authors identified 20 studies for inclusion in the review. Sixteen studies (977 infants) compared two separate groups of infants treated with a volume-targeted mode of ventilation compared with a pressure-limited mode of ventilation. In four studies (84 infants), the infants were treated with both modes of ventilation in a cross-over design (where infants had ventilation with one method and were then swapped over to the second method). Most of the studies were of moderate to low quality and none of them were blinded to those who assessed therapy. The most important results from this review were based on data from eight to 12 studies including 584 to 771 infants. Babies ventilated using volume-targeted modes of ventilation were more likely to survive free of lung damage. They needed ventilator assistance for a shorter duration and were less likely to develop pneumothorax (a condition when air escapes from the lung into the chest). They had more stable carbon dioxide levels in the blood, and had fewer brain ultrasound abnormalities. There was no evidence that volume-targeted modes were more likely to harm the infant than traditional pressure-limited modes. More research is needed to understand whether volume-targeted modes also lead to improvements in the development of movement and intellect. More research is also needed comparing different volume-targeting techniques. Low to moderate quality as none of the studies were blinded and there were issues with study design in some of the studies.