***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: Treatments for mild viral infections are usually directed at providing symptomatic relief . The effectiveness of the homoeopathic remedy Gripp-Heel was compared with that of conventional treatments in a prospect i ve , observational cohort study in 485 patients with mild viral infections and symptoms such as fever , headache , muscle pain , cough or sore throat . Practitioners specialised in homoeopathy or conventional treatment , or practised both to similar extents . As evaluated by the practitioners , the homoeopathic therapy was effective to similar or greater degree than the conventional therapies : 67.9 % of patients were considered asymptomatic at the end of Gripp-Heel therapy vs. 47.9 % of patients in the control group . Practitioners judged homoeopathic treatments as ' successful ' in 78.1 % of cases vs. 52.2 % for conventional therapies .  Tolerability and compliance were good in both treatment groups , with the verdict ' very good ' given for 88.9 % of patients in the homoeopathic group vs. 38.8 % in the conventional treatment group 1 . A controlled clinical trial was conducted to assess the effectiveness of a homoeopathic preparation in the treatment of  influenza-like syndromes .  2 . 237 cases received the test drug and 241 were assigned to placebo .  Patients recorded their rectal temperature twice a day , and the presence or absence of five cardinal symptoms ( headache , stiffness , lumbar and articular pain , shivers ) along with cough , coryza and fatigue . 3 . Recovery was defined as a rectal temperature less than 37.5 degrees C and complete resolution of the five cardinal symptoms . 4 . The proportion of cases who recovered within 48 h of treatment was greater among the active drug group than among the placebo group ( 17.1 % against 10.3 % , P = 0.03 ) . 5 . The result can not be explained given our present state of knowledge , but it calls for further rigorously design ed clinical studies 
    Output:
    
There is insufficient good evidence to enable robust conclusions to be made about Oscillococcinum ® in the prevention or treatment of influenza and influenza-like illness .
There was no evidence of clinical ly important harms due to Oscillococcinum ®