***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: Five studies were included, of which four with a total of 282 participants provided data. No meta-analysis was possible due to heterogeneity of comparisons within included studies as well as inadequate reporting of data. All studies were considered to be at either moderate or high risk of bias. The results of this systematic review indicate that there is no clinical or statistical difference between systematic desensitisation and any of the control interventions (either waiting list control, systematic desensitisation combined with group therapy or in vitro (with women under instruction by the therapist) desensitisation) for the treatment of vaginismus. The drop-out rates were higher in the waiting list groups. A clinically relevant effect of systematic desensitisation when compared with any of the control interventions cannot be ruled out. None of the included trials compared other behaviour therapies (e.g. cognitive behaviour therapy, sex therapy) to pharmacological interventions. The findings are limited by the evidence available and as such conclusions about the efficacy of interventions for the treatment of vaginismus should be drawn cautiously.
Output:

This review found five poor to moderate quality studies, of which four with a total of 282 women provided data. There was not enough evidence to say if systematic desensitisation worked better than another treatment. Further studies including larger numbers of women are needed to show if systematic desensitisation if effective for the treatment of women with vaginismus.