***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: It is hypothesized that vitamin D insufficiency in athletes might negatively affect sport performance . The objective of this study was to examine the effect of vitamin D3 supplementation on physical performance of adolescent swimmers with vitamin D insufficiency . Fifty-three adolescent competitive swimmers with vitamin D insufficiency ( serum 25-hydroxyvitamin-D concentrations ( 25(OH)D ) < 30 ng/ml , mean 24.2 ± 4.8 ng/ml ) were r and omized to receive 2,000 IU/day of vitamin D3 or placebo for 12 weeks . Swimming performance at several speeds , arm-grip strength , and one-legged balance , were measured before and after supplementation . The age-adjusted changes in performance variables during the study were compared between groups . 25(OH ) D concentrations at study end were significantly higher in the vitamin group compared with the placebo group ( 29.6 ± 6.5 ng/ml vs. 20.3 ± 4.2 ng/ml , p < .001 ) , yet only 48 % of the vitamin group became vitamin D sufficient with this dosing . No between-group differences were found in the changes of the performance variables tested . No significant differences in performance were found between participants that became vitamin D sufficient , and those who did not . No significant correlation was found between the change in serum 25(OH)D and age-adjusted balance , strength or swimming performance at study end . Vitamin D3 supplementation that raised serum 25(OH)D concentrations by a mean of 9.3 ng/ml above placebo in adolescent swimmers with vitamin D insufficiency , did not improve physical performance more than placebo Context Clinicians rely on systematic review s for current , evidence -based information . Contribution This survival analysis of 100 meta-analyses indexed in ACP Journal Club from 1995 to 2005 found that new evidence that substantively changed conclusions about the effectiveness or harms of therapies arose frequently and within relatively short time periods . The median survival time without substantive new evidence for the meta-analyses was 5.5 years . Significant new evidence was already available for 7 % of the review s at the time of publication and became available for 23 % within 2 years . Implication Clinical ly important evidence that alters conclusions about the effectiveness and harms of treatments can accumulate rapidly . The Editors Systematic review s have become increasingly common in recent years ( 1 ) and are recommended by many as the best sources of evidence to guide both clinical decisions ( 2 ) and health care policy ( 3 ) . For systematic review s to fulfill these roles , their findings must remain relatively stable for at least several years or effective mechanisms must exist for alerting end users to important changes in evidence . Yet , surprisingly little research has assessed the extent to which systematic review s become out of date or the rate at which this occurs ( 47 ) . Some organizations , such as the Cochrane Collaboration , recommend updating systematic review s every 2 years , but few empirical data guide this or other recommendations about updating . We sought to determine how quickly systematic review s meet explicitly defined criteria for changes in evidence of sufficient importance to warrant updating . We also sought to identify predictors of survival time , the time to such important changes in evidence . Survival time might vary depending on many factors , including the type of question posed by the original review ( for example , therapeutic or diagnostic ) , the types of studies included ( for example , r and omized trials or observational studies ) , and whether the systematic review provided quantitative synthesis . To limit such variation , we focused on systematic review s of r and omized , controlled trials that evaluated therapeutic benefit or harm by providing quantitative synthesis ( meta- analysis ) for at least 1 outcome . Methods Study Design and Sample We used a quasi-r and om process ( alphabetical sort order by author ) to select 100 systematic review s that were indexed in ACP Journal Club with an accompanying commentary between January 1995 and December 2005 ( with a search date no later than 31 December 2004 to ensure at least 1 full year for new evidence to appear ) . We chose this sampling frame because ACP Journal Club selects systematic review s that meet explicit quality st and ards and are deemed directly relevant to clinical practice ( 8) . We regarded the sample size of 100 as sufficiently large to achieve suitably narrow confidence intervals and to permit evaluation of up to 5 potential predictors of survival . Eligibility Criteria Eligible review s evaluated the benefit or harm of a specific drug , class of drug , device , or procedure ( invasive procedure or surgery ) and included r and omized or quasi-r and omized , controlled trials . We excluded evaluations of alternative and complementary medicines because the stability of review s of such therapies might differ substantially from review s of conventional therapies . We required that review s provide a point estimate and 95 % confidence interval for at least 1 outcome in the form of a relative risk , odds ratio , or absolute risk difference for binary outcomes and weighted mean differences for continuous outcomes . We excluded meta-analyses of individual-patient data , meta-regressions , and indirect meta-analyses because of the difficulty of determining whether new data would alter previous quantitative results . Two team members independently assessed eligibility , with disagreements resolved by consensus involving a third review er . When more than 1 review on the same topic was identified , only the earliest was included . Search ing For each review , search es for new trials included identifying new systematic review s on the same topic , su bmi tting relevant content terms to the Clinical Queries function in Ovid , applying the Related Articles function in PubMed to the 3 largest and the 3 most recent trials in the original review ( up to 6 trials in total ) , and using Scopus ( www . scopus .com/ scopus /home.url ) to identify new r and omized trials that cited the original review . When these search strategies yielded no eligible new trials , we conducted more comprehensive electronic search es and review ed relevant chapters in such sources as Clinical Evidence and UpTo Date to ensure that we had not missed new trials . Team members who had background s in both medicine and clinical research screened citations retrieved by the preceding methods to identify trials that would have met the inclusion criteria in the original review . Retrieved articles were screened in chronological order to ascertain quantitative or qualitative signals for the need for updating . The review protocol stopped when any criteria for updating were met . Each systematic review was discussed in detail , with the final statussignal for updating was or was not detectedadjudicated by consensus ( Figure 1 ) . Figure 1 . Overall process for determining updating status . ACP Journal Club Signals for the Need to Up date Systematic Review s In design ing criteria for comparing new findings with those in a previous review , we adapted methods used by other investigators to address similar problems with comparing 2 sets of results relating to the same question ( 913 ) , such as r and omized and nonr and omized studies of the same intervention . These investigators identified conflicting findings among different publications using a combination of quantitative thresholds for differences in effect magnitude and qualitative judgments about the language used to describe the results . We have similarly conceptualized quantitative and qualitative signals of potential changes in evidence that are sufficiently important to warrant updating previous systematic review s. Quantitative Signals Quantitative signals consisted of a change in statistical significance or relative change in effect magnitude of at least 50 % . We restricted these changes to those involving 1 of the primary outcomes of the original review or any mortality outcome . We also ignored trivial changes in statistical significance when the original and up date d meta-analytic results both had P values between 0.04 and 0.06so that quantitative signals of changes in evidence would represent robust indicators of the need to up date previous review s. Quantitative signals were detected by combining data from eligible new trials with the previous results using a fixed-effects approach . Use of fixed-effect models allowed pooling of the new trials with the previous meta-analytic result , as opposed to having to obtain original data from all of the included trials in each of 100 systematic review s. Although r and om-effects models are usually preferred to avoid spurious precision in the face of heterogeneity , our goal was to detect potential changes in evidence that would warrant a formal up date , not produce exact estimates of the up date d results . Qualitative Signals Qualitative signals included new information about harm sufficient to affect clinical decision making , important caveats to the original results , emergence of a superior alternate therapy , and important changes in certainty or direction of effect . Qualitative signals were detected by using explicit criteria for comparing the language in the original review with descriptions of findings in new systematic review s that addressed the same topic , pivotal trials , clinical practice guidelines , or recent editions of major textbooks ( for example , UpTo Date ) . Pivotal trials were defined as trials that had a sample size at least 3 times larger than that of the previous largest trial or were published in 1 of the 5 highest-impact general medical journals ( The New Engl and Journal of Medicine , Lancet , Journal of the American Medical Association , Annals of Internal Medicine , and the British Medical Journal ) . We defined 2 levels of importance for qualitative signals : potentially invalidating changes in evidence , which would make one no longer want clinicians or policymakers to base decisions on the original findings ( such as a pivotal trial that characterized treatment effectiveness in terms opposite of those in the original systematic review ) , and major changes in evidence , which would affect clinical decision making in important ways without invalidating the previous results ( such as the identification of patient population s for whom treatment is more or less beneficial ) . Major changes also included differing characterizations of effectiveness that were less extreme than those for potentially invalidating signals but that would still affect clinical decision making ( for example , a change from possibly beneficial to definitely beneficial ) . Of importance , such characterizations as possibly effective , probably effective , and promising , were all categorized as possibly effective . Thus , qualitative signals for changes in evidence captured substantive differences in the characterization of treatment effects , not merely semantic differences . Full definitions for each of the specific signals can be found at www.ohri.ca/UpdatingSystRevs . Data Collection For each review , we characterized the clinical content area , eligibility criteria for included trials , definitions of reported outcomes , number of included trials and participants , meta-analytic result for each outcome , identification of statistical heterogeneity , and excerpted quotations of the authors ' characterizations of the main results . We also abstract ed whether a given outcome was explicitly identified as 1 of the primary or main outcomes . We discounted identification of more than 3 such outcomes as inconsistent with the Objectives : Vitamin D is critical for skeletal health ; hypovitaminosis D is common in pediatric inflammatory bowel disease ( IBD ) , yet optimal repletion therapy is not well studied . We aim ed to conduct a pilot trial comparing the efficacy of 2 vitamin D regimens of weekly dosing for the repletion of hypovitaminosis D in pediatric IBD . Methods : Subjects identified from our IBD clinic with 25-hydroxyvitamin D ( 25[OH]D ) concentrations < 30 ng/mL were r and omized to 10,000 ( n = 18 ) or 5000 ( n = 14 ) IU of oral vitamin D3/10 kg body weight per week for 6 weeks  . Serum 25(OH)D , Ca , and parathyroid hormone concentrations were measured at baseline , week 8 , and week 12 . Results : In the higher dosing group , serum 25(OH)D increased from 23.7 ± 8.5 ng/mL at baseline to 49.2 ± 13.6 ng/mL at 8 weeks ; P < 0.001 . In the lower dosing group , serum 25(OH)D increased from 24.0 ± 7.0 ng/mL at baseline to 41.5 ± 9.6 ng/mL at 8 weeks ; P < 0.001 . At 12 weeks , serum 25(OH)D concentrations were 35.1 ± 8.4 and 30.8 ± 4.2 ng/mL for the higher and lower dose regimens , respectively . Mean serum Ca and parathyroid hormone concentrations did not significantly change during the study . No patient exhibited hypercalcemia , and no serious adverse events occurred . Conclusions : Both treatment arms were safe and effective at normalizing vitamin D nutriture in pediatric IBD . Although significant repletion of 25(OH)D concentration was achieved in both dosing groups at 8 weeks , this effect was lost by the 12-week follow-up . Maintenance vitamin D therapy following initial repletion is likely required to maintain long-term normalized vitamin D status Objectives : The aim of this study was to investigate the 25-hydroxyvitamin D [ 25(OH)D ] status of children with growing pains and to evaluate the efficacy of vitamin D treatment on the resolution of pain symptoms . Subjects and Methods : One hundred and twenty children with growing pains were included in a prospect i ve cohort study . Serum 25(OH)D and bone mineral levels were measured in all subjects at the time of enrollment . The pain intensity of those with vitamin D deficiency was measured using a pain visual analog scale ( VAS ) . After a single oral dose of vitamin D , the pain intensity was remeasured by means of the VAS at 3 months . The 25(OH)D levels and VAS scores before and after oral vitamin D administration were compared by means of a paired Student 's t test . Results : In the 120 children with growing pains , vitamin D insufficiency was noted in 104 ( 86.6 % ) . Following vitamin D supplementation , the mean 25(OH)D levels increased from 13.4 ± 7.2 to 44.5 ± 16.4 ng/ml , the mean pain VAS score decreased from 6.8 ± 1.9 to 2.9 ± 2.5 cm ( a mean reduction of -3.8 ± 2.1 , p < 0.001 ) and the difference was statistically significant . Conclusion : Supplementation with oral vitamin D result ed in a significant reduction in pain intensity among these children with growing pains who had hypov 
    Output:
    
This study demonstrates the accuracy of crowdsourcing for systematic review citations screening , with retention of all eligible articles and a significant reduction in the work required from the investigative team .
Together , these two findings suggest that crowdsourcing could represent a significant advancement in the area of systematic review .