***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: & NA ; Physical therapists seeking to use evidence to guide their practice may have limited time to read research reports . One way to reduce the time required to identify and read about the research that is relevant to a particular clinical question is to read a systematic review that summarizes multiple studies . This paper explains the process that is used to conduct systematic review s , which includes the establishment of a protocol , comprehensive search ing , appraisal of the quality of the included studies , data extraction and meta analysis , and consideration of the clinical and research implication s of the findings . We also consider how the reader of a systematic review can determine whether the review is likely to provide an unbiased ( believable ) estimate of the treatment effect . A systematic review of r and omized trials of a  cardiopulmonary physical therapy intervention is used as an example . The issue of appraisal of quality is then discussed further , with a demonstration of how one vali date d tool for quality appraisal ‐‐the PEDro scale‐‐can be used to evaluate a r and omized trial in cardiopulmonary physical therapy Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of r and omised controlled trials ( RCTs ) is not optimal . Without transparent reporting , readers can not judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic review s. Recent method ological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects . Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs , which are considered the gold st and ard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias . A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT ( Consoli date d St and ards of Reporting Trials ) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs . It was first published in 1996 and up date d in 2001 . The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT . Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement . The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs . During the 2001 CONSORT revision , it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports . A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement . After an expert meeting in January 2007 , the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement . This up date improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition , such as selective outcome reporting bias . This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use , underst and ing , and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised . It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and up date d checklist item providing examples of good reporting and , where possible , references to relevant empirical studies . Several examples of flow diagrams are included . The CONSORT 2010 Statement , this revised explanatory and elaboration document , and the associated website ( www.consort-statement.org ) should be helpful re sources to improve reporting of r and omised trials Five women with osteoarthritis and 10 with rheumatoid arthritis and finger joint involvement wore a pressure gradient glove , a control glove , or no glove in a r and omly assigned sequence . All were out patients . Each patient wore the assigned glove nightly for 1 week , after which a battery of subjective and objective data , including number of tender joints , ring size , grip strength , palmar temperature , and h and function were obtained . In all , 105 separate examinaion sessions were completed over 7 visits , with each h and serving as its own control in the experimental design . The palmar skin temperature was elevated in both patient groups when either a pressure gradient or control glove was worn . In patients with rheumatoid arthritis , the only significant difference was that the pressure gradient glove reduced ring size when compared to the control glove or no glove . No differences were detected in the patients with osteoarthritis BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Assessment of the quality of r and omized controlled trials ( RCTs ) is common practice in systematic review s. However , the reliability of data obtained with most quality assessment scales has not been established . This report describes 2 studies design ed to investigate the reliability of data obtained with the Physiotherapy Evidence Data base ( PEDro ) scale developed to rate the quality of RCTs evaluating physical therapist interventions . METHOD In the first study , 11 raters independently rated 25 RCTs r and omly selected from the PEDro data base . In the second study , 2 raters rated 120 RCTs r and omly selected from the PEDro data base , and disagreements were resolved by a third rater ; this generated a set of individual rater and consensus ratings . The process was repeated by independent raters to create a second set of individual and consensus ratings . Reliability of ratings of PEDro scale items was calculated using multirater kappas , and reliability of the total ( summed ) score was calculated using intraclass correlation coefficients ( ICC [ 1,1 ] ) . RESULTS The kappa value for each of the 11 items ranged from.36 to.80 for individual assessors and from.50 to.79 for consensus ratings generated by groups of 2 or 3 raters . The ICC for the total score was.56 ( 95 % confidence interval=.47-.65 ) for ratings by individuals , and the ICC for consensus ratings was.68 ( 95 % confidence interval=.57-.76 ) . DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION The reliability of ratings of PEDro scale items varied from " fair " to " substantial , " and the reliability of the total PEDro score was " fair " to " good . Twenty-three patients with rheumatoid arthritis whose disease had become stabilized while receiving non-steroidal , anti-inflammatory drugs and /or gold salt injections  entered an 8 week crossover study in which the effect of a compression glove worn during sleep was compared to a loosely fitting glove made of the same material .  Improvement in h and symptoms was greater with the compression glove than with the control glove as regards morning stiffness , pain , night time throbbing , numbness or heaviness and a subjective assessment of swelling ( p = 0.01 ) . In addition , swelling of the proximal interphalangeal joints was slightly reduced ( p = 0.05 ) . These data suggest that the night time use of compression gloves in patients with rheumatoid arthritis can improve h and symptoms and exert a mild , transiently beneficial effect upon the degree of h and swelling A r and omized , controlled trial was conducted to determine efficacy of the Isotoner and the Futuro compression gloves in 39 patients with h and synovitis secondary to rheumatoid arthritis . After 7 days of nighttime treatment , both br and s of gloves were found to decrease subjective symptoms of pain and stiffness ( p < 0.05 ) . In addition , swelling of the proximal interphalangeal joints decreased , while range of motion , rate of finger motion , and grip strength all increased ( p < 0.05 ) . Compression gloves should be used with caution in patients with bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome , because 12 of 13 such patients experienced worsening of their symptoms following one nighttime wearing of compression gloves . While both gloves were found to be efficacious in improving the signs and symptoms of h and synovitis , neither glove was found to be superior to the other . Patient preferences related to glove composition and fit may ultimately determine which glove to prescribe 
    Output:
    
Evidence for the effectiveness of compression gloves worn at night is inconclusive in rheumatoid arthritis and h and osteoarthritis