***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: Background Peer-assisted learning has many purported benefits including preparing students as educators , improving communication skills and reducing faculty teaching burden . But comparatively little is known about the effects of teaching on learning outcomes of peer educators in medical education . Methods One hundred and thirty-five first year medical students were r and omly allocated to 11 small groups for the Gastroenterology/Hematology Course at the University of Calgary . For each of 22 sessions , two students were r and omly selected from each group to be peer educators .  Students were surveyed to estimate time spent preparing as peer educator versus group member .  Students completed an end-of-course 94 question multiple choice exam . A paired t-test was used to compare performance on clinical presentations for which students were peer educators to those for which they were not . Results Preparation time increased from a mean ( SD ) of 36 ( 33 ) minutes baseline to 99 ( 60 ) minutes when peer educators ( Cohen 's d = 1.3 ; p < 0.001 ) . The mean score ( SD ) for clinical presentations in which students were peer educators was 80.7 % ( 11.8 ) compared to77.6 % ( 6.9 ) for those which they were not ( d = 0.33 ; p < 0.01 ) . Conclusion Our results suggest that involvement in teaching small group sessions improves medical students ' knowledge acquisition and retention Background Advanced resuscitation skills training is an important and enjoyable part of medical training , but requires small group instruction to ensure active participation of all students . Increases in student numbers have made this increasingly difficult to achieve . Methods A single-blind r and omised controlled trial of peer-led vs. expert-led resuscitation training was performed using a group of sixth-year medical students as peer instructors . The expert instructors were a senior and a middle grade doctor , and a nurse who is an Advanced Life Support ( ALS ) Instructor . A power calculation showed that the trial would have a greater than 90 % chance of rejecting the null hypothesis ( that expert-led groups performed 20 % better than peer-led groups ) if that were the true situation . Secondary outcome measures were the proportion of High Pass grade s in each groups and safety incidents . The peer instructors design ed and delivered their own course material . To ensure safety , the peer-led groups used modified defibrillators that could deliver only low-energy shocks . Blinded assessment was conducted using an Objective Structured Clinical Examination ( OSCE ) . The checklist items were based on International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation ( ILCOR ) guidelines using Ebel st and ard- setting methods that emphasised patient and staff safety and clinical effectiveness . The results were analysed using Exact methods , chi-squared and t-test . Results A total of 132 students were r and omised : 58 into the expert-led group , 74 into the peer-led group . 57/58 ( 98 % ) of students from the expert-led group achieved a Pass compared to 72/74 ( 97 % ) from the peer-led group : Exact statistics confirmed that it was very unlikely ( p = 0.0001 ) that the expert-led group was 20 % better than the peer-led group . There were no safety incidents , and High Pass grade s were achieved by 64 ( 49 % ) of students : 33/58 ( 57 % ) from the expert-led group , 31/74 ( 42 % ) from the peer-led group . Exact statistics showed that the difference of 15 % meant that it was possible that the expert-led teaching was 20 % better at generating students with High Passes . Conclusions The key elements of advanced cardiac resuscitation can be safely and effectively taught to medical students in small groups by peer-instructors who have undergone basic medical education training A report of a r and omized , controlled trial ( RCT ) should convey to the reader , in a transparent manner , why the study was undertaken and how it was conducted and analyzed . For example , a lack of adequately reported r and omization has been associated with bias in estimating the effectiveness of interventions ( 1 , 2 ) . To assess the strengths and limitations of an RCT , readers need and deserve to know the quality of its methods . Despite several decades of educational efforts , RCTs still are not being reported adequately ( 3 - 6 ) . For example , a review of 122 recently published RCTs that evaluated the effectiveness of selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitors as first-line management strategy for depression found that only 1 ( 0.8 % ) paper described r and omization adequately ( 5 ) . Inadequate reporting makes the interpretation of RCT results difficult if not impossible . Moreover , inadequate reporting borders on unethical practice when biased results receive false credibility . History of CONSORT In the mid-1990s , two independent initiatives to improve the quality of reports of RCTs led to the publication of the CONSORT ( Consoli date d St and ards of Reporting Trials ) statement ( 7 ) , which was developed by an international group of clinical trialists , statisticians , epidemiologists , and biomedical editors . CONSORT has been supported by a growing number of medical and health care journals ( 8 - 11 ) and editorial groups , including the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors ( ICMJE , also known as the Vancouver Group ) ( 12 ) , the Council of Science Editors ( CSE ) , and the World Association of Medical Editors ( WAME ) . CONSORT is also published in Dutch , English , French , German , Japanese , and Spanish . It can be accessed on the Internet , along with other information about the CONSORT group ( 13 ) . The CONSORT statement comprises a checklist and flow diagram for reporting an RCT . For convenience , the checklist and diagram together are called simply CONSORT . They are primarily intended for use in writing , review ing , or evaluating reports of simple two-group , parallel RCTs . Preliminary data indicate that the use of CONSORT does indeed help to improve the quality of reports of RCTs ( 14 , 15 ) . In an evaluation ( 14 ) of 71 RCTs published in three journals in 1994 , allocation concealment was not clearly reported in 43 ( 61 % ) of the RCTs . Four years later , after these three journals required that authors reporting an RCT use CONSORT , the proportion of papers in which allocation concealment was not clearly reported had dropped to 39 % ( 30 of 77 ; mean difference , 22 % [ 95 % CI of the difference , 38 % to 6 % ] ) . The usefulness of CONSORT is enhanced by continuous monitoring of the biomedical literature ; this monitoring allows CONSORT to be modified depending on the merits of maintaining or dropping current items and including new items . For example , when Meinert ( 16 ) observed that the flow diagram did not provide important information about the number of participants who entered each phase of an RCT ( enrollment , treatment allocation , follow-up , and data analysis ) , the diagram could be modified to accommo date the information . The checklist is similarly flexible . This iterative process makes the CONSORT statement a continually evolving instrument . While participants in the CONSORT group and their degree of involvement vary over time , members meet regularly to review the need to refine CONSORT . At the 1999 meeting , the participants decided to revise the original statement . This report reflects changes determined by consensus of the CONSORT group , partly in response to emerging evidence on the importance of various elements of RCTs . Revision of the CONSORT Statement Thirteen members of the CONSORT group met in May 1999 with the primary objective of revising the original CONSORT checklist and flow diagram , as needed . The group discussed the merits of including each item in the light of current evidence . As in developing the original CONSORT statement , our intention was to keep only those items deemed fundamental to reporting st and ards for an RCT . Some items not considered essential may well be highly desirable and should still be included in an RCT report even though they are not included in CONSORT . Such items include approval of an institutional ethical review board , sources of funding for the trial , and a trial registry number ( as , for example , the International St and ard R and omized Controlled Trial Number [ IS RCT N ] used to register an RCT at its inception [ 17 ] ) . Shortly after the meeting , a revised version of the checklist was circulated to the group for additional comments and feedback . Revisions to the flow diagram were similarly made . All these changes were discussed when CONSORT participants met in May 2000 , and the revised statement was finalized shortly afterward . The revised CONSORT statement includes a 22-item checklist ( Table ) and a flow diagram ( Figure ) . Its primary aim is to help authors improve the quality of reports of simple two-group , parallel RCTs . However , the basic philosophy underlying the development of the statement can be applied to any design . In this regard , additional statements for other design s will be forthcoming from the group ( 13 ) . CONSORT can also be used by peer review ers and editors to identify reports with inadequate description of trials and those with potentially biased results ( 1 , 2 ) . Table . Checklist of Items To Include When Reporting a R and omized Trial Figure . Flow diagram of the progress through the phases of a r and omized trial ( enrollment , intervention allocation , follow-up , and data analysis ) . During the 1999 meeting , the group also discussed the benefits of developing an explanatory document to enhance the use and dissemination of CONSORT . The document is patterned on reporting of statistical aspects of clinical research ( 18 ) , which was developed to help facilitate the recommendations of the ICMJE 's Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Su bmi tted to Biomedical Journals . Three members of the CONSORT group , with assistance from members on some checklist items , drafted an explanation and elaboration document . That document ( 19 ) was circulated to the group for additions and revisions and was last revised after review at the latest CONSORT group meeting . Changes to CONSORT 1 . In the revised checklist , a new column for Paper Section and Topic integrates information from the Subheading column that was contained in the original statement . 2 . The Was It Reported ? column has been integrated into a Reported on Page Number column , as requested by some journals . 3 . Each item of the checklist is now numbered , and the syntax and order have been revised to improve the flow of information . 4 . Title and Abstract are now combined in the first item . 5 . While the content of the revised checklist is similar to that of the original one , some items that previously were combined are now separate . For example , authors had been asked to describe primary and secondary outcome ( s ) measure(s ) and the minimum important difference(s ) , and indicate how the target sample size was projected . In the new version , issues pertaining to outcomes ( item 6 ) and sample size ( item 7 ) are separate , enabling authors to be more explicit about each . Moreover , some items request additional information . For example , for outcomes ( item 6 ) authors are asked to report any methods used to enhance the quality of measurements , such as multiple observations . 6 . The item asking for the unit of r and omization ( for example , cluster ) has been dropped because specific checklists have been developed for reporting cluster RCTs ( 20 ) and other design types ( 13 ) since publication of the original checklist . 7 . Whenever possible , new evidence is incorporated into the revised checklist . For example , authors are asked to be explicit about whether the analysis reported is by intention to treat ( item 16 ) . This request is based in part on the observations ( 21 ) that authors do not adequately describe and apply intention-to-treat analysis and that reports not providing this information are less likely to provide other relevant information , such as losses to follow-up ( 22 ) . 8 . The revised flow diagram depicts information from four stages of a trial ( enrollment , intervention allocation , follow-up , and analysis ) . The revised diagram explicitly includes the number of participants , for each intervention group , included in the primary data analysis . Inclusion of these numbers lets the reader know whether the authors have performed an intention-to-treat analysis ( 21 - 23 ) . Because some of the information may not always be known and to accommo date other information , the structure of the flow diagram may need to be modified for a particular trial . Inclusion of the participant flow diagram in the report is strongly recommended but may be unnecessary for simple trials , such as those without any participant withdrawals or dropouts . Discussion Specifically developed to guide authors about how to improve the quality of reporting of simple two-group , parallel RCTs , CONSORT encourages transparency with reporting of the methods and results so that reports of RCTs can be interpreted both readily and accurately . However , CONSORT does not address other facets of reporting that also require attention , such as scientific content and readability of RCT reports . Some authors , in their enthusiasm to use CONSORT , have modified the checklist ( 24 ) . We recommend against such modifications because they may be based on a different process than the one used by the CONSORT group . The use of CONSORT seems to reduce ( if not eliminate ) inadequate reporting of RCTs ( 14 , 15 ) . Potentially , the use of CONSORT should positively influence the manner in which RCTs are conducted . Granting agencies have noted this potential relationship and , in at least in one case ( 25 ) , have encouraged grantees to consider in their application how they have dealt with the CONSORT items . The evidence -based approach used to develop CONSORT has also been used PURPOSE : To see whether fourth-year medical students can teach the physical examination to first-year students as effectively as can faculty preceptors . METHOD : Ninety-three first-year students study ing the physical examination were r and omly assigned to one of ten fourth-year student preceptors or one of 15 faculty preceptors .  Test results and course evaluations were compared by type of preceptor . Fourth-year student preceptors were surveyed regarding their experience . RESULTS : The mean test scores did not differ between the first-year students with fourth-year student preceptors and those with faculty preceptors . The first-year students rated the fourth-year student preceptors higher than they did the faculty preceptors . The fourth-year students rated their experience favorably . CONCLUSION : A select group of fourth-year medical students provides a successful alternative to faculty in the teaching of the physical examination to first- 
    Output:
    
Overall , results suggest that peer-teaching , in highly selective context s , achieves short-term learner outcomes that are comparable with those produced by faculty-based teaching .
Furthermore , peer-teaching has beneficial effects on student-teacher learning outcomes .
Conclusions Peer-teaching in undergraduate medical programs is comparable to conventional teaching when utilized in selected context s. There is evidence to suggest that participating student-teachers benefit academically and professionally .