***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 included eight studies with a total of 2227 women undergoing elective caesarean section. Of these, 1097 underwent intraoperative cervical dilatation with a double-gloved index finger or Hegar dilator inserted into the cervical canal to dilate, and 1130 did not undergo intraoperative cervical dilatation. Six of the eight included trials had high risk of bias for some of the risk of bias domains. Very low-quality evidence suggested it was unclear whether cervical dilatation had any impact on postpartum haemorrhage (estimated blood loss greater than 1000 mL; risk ratio (RR) 1.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48 to 8.13; 5/205 versus 3/242; one study, 447 women). Low- or very low-quality evidence showed no clear difference for the need for blood transfusion (RR 3.54, 95% CI 0.37 to 33.79; two studies, 847 women); postoperative haemoglobin (mean difference (MD -0.05, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.06; three studies, 749 women), or haematocrit (MD 0.01%, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.20; one study, 400 women); the incidence of drop from baseline haemoglobin above 0.5 g/dL (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.31; two studies, 722 women), or amount of haemoglobin drop (MD -0.01 g/dL, 95% -0.14 to 0.13; three studies, 796 women); the incidence of secondary postpartum haemorrhage within six weeks (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.07 to 18.76; one study, 447 women); febrile morbidity (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.85; seven studies, 2126 women); endometritis (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.52; four studies, 1536 women); or uterine subinvolution (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.36; two studies, 654 women); the results crossed the line of no effect for all of the outcomes. There were no data for cervical trauma. We found a slight improvement with mechanical dilatation for these secondary outcomes, not prespecified in the protocol: mean blood loss, endometrial cavity thickness, retained products of conception, distortion of uterine incision, and healing ratio. The evidence for these outcomes was based on one or two studies. Cervical dilatation did not have a clear effect on these secondary outcomes, not prespecified in the protocol: wound infection, urinary tract infection, operative time, infectious morbidity, and integrity of uterine scar. At this time, the evidence does not support or refute the use of mechanical dilatation of the cervix during elective caesarean section for reducing postoperative morbidity. Further large, well-designed studies are required to compare the effect of intraoperative mechanical dilatation of the cervix with no intraoperative mechanical cervical dilatation for reducing postoperative morbidity.
Output:

We searched for evidence from randomised controlled trials in September 2017. We identified eight studies with a total of 2227 women undergoing elective (planned) caesarean section before the onset of labour. Of these women, 1097 underwent cervical dilatation with a double-gloved index finger, or in one study with a Hegar dilator, during surgery, while 1130 did not undergo cervical dilatation during surgery. Low- or very low-quality evidence suggested it was unclear whether cervical dilatation had any impact on postpartum haemorrhage (estimated blood loss greater than 1000 mL), the need for blood transfusion, and other measures of blood loss, postpartum haemorrhage within six weeks, febrile morbidity (infection indicated by increased temperature over a defined time period), endometritis (infection of the lining of the womb), or uterine subinvolution (uterus not returning to its normal size after childbirth). There were no data for cervical trauma. We found a slight improvement with mechanical dilatation for some outcomes that had not been specified in our original protocol, but the evidence for these outcomes was based on one or two studies (mean blood loss, endometrial cavity thickness, retained products of conception, distortion of uterine incision, and healing ratio). Cervical dilatation did not have a clear effect on other secondary outcomes, (again not specified in our original protocol): wound infection, urinary tract infection, operative time, infectious morbidity, and integrity of uterine scar. It is uncertain whether cervical dilatation has any impact on reducing postoperative problems after caesarean section. This means there is insufficient evidence to encourage or discourage the use of mechanical dilatation of the cervix at elective caesarean section for reducing postoperative ill-health.