***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 Influenza causes lower respiratory tract complications ( LRTCs ) , particularly bronchitis and pneumonia , in both otherwise healthy adults and those with underlying conditions . The aim of this study was to assess the effect of oseltamivir treatment on the incidence of LRTCs leading to antibiotic treatment and hospitalizations following influenza illness . METHODS We analyzed prospect ively collected data on LRTCs and antibiotic use from 3564 subjects ( age range , 13 - 97 years ) with influenzalike illness enrolled in 10 placebo-controlled , double-blind trials of oseltamivir treatment .  RESULTS In adults and adolescents with a proven influenza illness , oseltamivir treatment reduced overall antibiotic use for any reason by 26.7 % ( 14.0 % vs 19.1 % with placebo ; P<.001 ) and the incidence of influenza-related LRTCs result ing in antibiotic therapy by 55 % ( 4.6 % vs 10.3 % with placebo ; P<.001 ) . In those subjects considered at increased risk of complications , 74 ( 18.5 % ) of 401 placebo recipients developed an LRTC leading to antibiotic use compared with 45 ( 12.2 % ) of 368 oseltamivir recipients ( 34.0 % reduction ; P = .02 ) . Hospitalization for any cause occurred in 18 ( 1.7 % ) of 1063 placebo recipients compared with 9 ( 0.7 % ) of 1350 oseltamivir-treated patients ( 59 % reduction ; P = .02 ) . In contrast , among subjects with an influenzalike illness but without a confirmed influenza infection , the incidence of LRTCs ( 6.7 % vs 5.3 % ) , overall antibiotic use ( 19.7 % vs 19.3 % ) , or hospitalizations ( 1.7 % vs 1.9 % ) was similar between placebo and oseltamivir recipients , respectively . CONCLUSION Oseltamivir treatment of influenza illness reduces LRTCs , antibiotic use , and hospitalization in both healthy and " at-risk " adults Industry funding and author financial conflicts of interest may influence the production and synthesis of scientific evidence ( 1 ) . Associations with the pharmaceutical company developing and marketing a drug have been found to influence the design of trials ( 2 ) , the conduct of trials ( 3 ) , and the reporting of trial results ( 47 ) . Furthermore , financial ties and industry funding seem to result in greater rates of favorable conclusions in clinical trials examining new drugs ( 812 ) . Fewer studies have considered the potential influence of financial conflicts of interest on the synthesis of clinical evidence in systematic review s ( 13 , 14 ) . Neuraminidase inhibitors , which are used in the prophylaxis and treatment of seasonal and p and emic influenza , have been the subject of ongoing uncertainty about their specific clinical benefits ( 15 , 16 ) . This is the result of not only the continuing emergence of strains with unknown drug responses but also the increasing awareness in the medical community that , until recently , its knowledge of the safety and efficacy of these drugs has been incomplete ( 17 ) . Despite the abundance of clinical trials and publications on neuraminidase inhibitors , the details of many key trials had not been disclosed ( 18 , 19 ) . As a result , systematic review ers analyzing and synthesizing evidence on the effectiveness of these agents have faced incomplete information , unresolved discrepancies in the data , and a high risk of publication and reporting biases among the primary clinical trials ( 20 , 21 ) . This prompted extensive efforts to access complete records of all published and unpublished clinical trials from manufacturers , culminating in the publication of several review s on the basis of comprehensive clinical study reports and potentially changing the way systematic review s will be undertaken in the future ( 2227 ) . Review s of neuraminidase inhibitors exhibit wide variation in their conclusions , ranging from strong endorsements of the use of these agents in the prophylaxis and treatment of influenza ( 28 , 29 ) to more conservative assessment s question ing the evidence on the drugs ' safety and efficacy ( 15 , 30 ) . The reasons for this discordance in review conclusions are likely multifactorial and may be related in part to the manner in which evidence is accessed , synthesized , and presented ( 23 , 27 ) , both in terms of the numerical results and the authors ' emphasis and interpretation ( 31 , 32 ) . Our aim was to determine whether there is an association between financial conflicts of interest and the favorable presentation of evidence in systematic review s on the use of neuraminidase inhibitors for the prophylaxis and treatment of influenza . Methods Data Sources Systematic review s were identified in PubMed , PubMed In Process , EMBASE , and the Cochrane Data base of Systematic Review s. Search es were done using the keywords influenza , neuraminidase inhibitors , oseltamivir , zanamivir , peramivir , and laninamivir . Articles were retrieved if the search terms appeared in the title or abstract or were included as data base-specific keywords . In PubMed and EMBASE , search es were also constrained to review publication types . We limited our search to English- language articles published since 1 January 2005 . These articles were manually review ed to identify those that focused on the use of neuraminidase inhibitors for influenza prophylaxis or treatment ( such as excluded articles primarily about drug development or other manufacturing processes ) . We selected all review s that used a systematic search protocol , which we defined as the inclusion and reporting of an explicit search strategy , including reasons for subsequent exclusion of articles . The final search es were done on 26 May 2014 . Cochrane review s are periodically up date d to incorporate new evidence , and the results and conclusions are resynthesized as indicated . The authors of these review s are typically different , and there may be differences in the methods as well as the results and language of the review . These up date d review s were included separately . Other Cochrane review s are occasionally rewritten by a subset of the authors for publication in medical journals as abridged versions to increase dissemination . These reports have separate peer review s and are prepared on the basis of a selection of the complete results . We considered these review s separately as well but also did a sensitivity analysis in which they were combined with the original Cochrane review s. Data Extraction Financial conflicts of interest were identified for all authors of the review s and included affiliations with or funding from the pharmaceutical company manufacturing any of the neuraminidase inhibitors under review . We defined financial conflicts of interest as employment , the funding of grants paid to an author or an author 's research group , and the funding of medical writers for the systematic review . These financial conflicts of interest were identified using information about affiliations or funding listed in the systematic review s , as well as in any other articles published by one of the authors during the 3 years before the publication of the index systematic review . In addition , we search ed authors ' personal and institutional Web sites ; lists of disclosures from GlaxoSmithKline ( Research Triangle Park , North Carolina ) and Roche Pharmaceuticals ( Basel , Switzerl and ) ; and performed Web search es combining the names of the authors , drugs , and pharmaceutical companies to identify any additional information about financial relationships . Details of the specific financial conflicts of interest identified for each author are listed in Appendix Table 1 . Appendix Table 1 . Financial Conflicts of Interest Among Authors of the Systematic Review s For each systematic review , we recorded whether prophylaxis or treatment was assessed , the forms of evidence to be included ( such as r and omized , controlled trials and observational studies ) , the specific clinical outcomes assessed , the population s examined , and whether meta-analyses were done . We also examined whether the review s included information about the validity or quality of the primary literature . In particular , we recorded whether there were statements addressing nonpublication of primary studies or publication bias , including tests done by the review ers to assess for bias in meta-analyses ( such as the Egger or Begg test [ 33 , 34 ] ) , difficulty in accessing comprehensive study data , and the prevalence or role of industry in conducting and funding the primary studies . Data Analysis Two investigators were provided with redacted copies of each review that did not include the review s ' authors , their affiliations , or information on financial conflicts of interest . These versions also did not contain the journal name , journal formatting , or the article 's acknowledgments or references . The investigators independently evaluated the review s and classified the prophylaxis and treatment assessment s as favorable or not favorable toward the use of neuraminidase inhibitors . They were instructed to do this grading on the basis of the entirety of the review text without restriction to conclusions or recommendations made in any specific section of the review , thus allowing them to take into account the emphasis and interpretation of the authors throughout the review . The agreement between the investigators was strong at 86 % ( Cohen , 0.72 ; P < 0.001 ) . Disagreements were resolved by a third investigator using the same redacted copies . Descriptive analyses were done to examine the associations between financial conflicts of interest and the grading of the systematic review s. A sensitivity analysis excluding the summary review s was done to further examine this association . We also assessed the association between financial conflicts of interest and the inclusion of statements addressing the validity or quality of the primary evidence . Role of the Funding Source This study was funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council . The funding source had no role in the design and conduct of the study , analysis of the results , or the decision to su bmi t the manuscript for publication . Results We identified 827 published articles across the 4 data bases using the specified search criteria , with 26 systematic review s included in the final cohort ( Figure ) . Thirteen review s examined prophylaxis and 24 examined treatment of influenza , accounting for 37 distinct assessment s ( Appendix Table 2 ) . In terms of review methods , 7 were Cochrane systematic review s and 19 conducted and reported a meta- analysis ( 73 % ) . The evidence inclusion criteria were limited to r and omized , controlled trials for 14 of the systematic review s ( 54 % ) , and 5 included evidence from clinical study reports or patient-level data . The main population s examined were healthy adults ( 18 of 26 systematic review s ) , children ( 13 of 26 ) , and hospitalized patients ( 6 of 24 ) . The outcome measures for prophylaxis assessment s included influenza-like illness and laboratory-confirmed influenza . For the treatment assessment s , the outcomes were illness duration , influenza-related complications , hospitalization , and mortality , mostly in combination . Five review s were up date s of previous Cochrane review s , and 3 were summary review s based on Cochrane review s. Figure . Summary of evidence search and selection . Eligible systematic review s included those with outcomes related to the prophylaxis or treatment of influenza . Appendix Table 2 . Characteristics of Systematic Review s Examining Prophylaxis and Treatment Outcomes for Neuraminidase Inhibitors Association Between Financial Conflicts of Interest and Favorable Assessment s Seven of the 26 systematic review s ( 27 % ) , corresponding to 8 of the 37 assessment s ( 22 % ) , were associated with a financial conflict of interest ( Appendix Table 1 ) . We identified financial conflicts of interest in publications other than the index systematic review in 2 cases , and no additional OBJECTIVE Our purpose was to measure the agreement , reliability , construct validity , and feasibility of a measurement tool to assess  systematic review s ( AMSTAR ) . STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING We r and omly selected 30 systematic review s from a data base . Each was assessed by two review ers using : ( 1 ) the enhanced quality assessment question naire ( Overview of Quality Assessment Question naire [ OQAQ ] ) ; ( 2 ) Sacks ' instrument ; and ( 3 ) our newly developed measurement tool ( AMSTAR ) . We report on reliability ( interobserver kappas of the 11 AMSTAR items ) , intraclass correlation coefficients ( ICCs ) of the sum scores , construct validity ( ICCs of the sum scores of AMSTAR compared with those of other instruments ) , and completion times . RESULTS The interrater agreement of the individual items of AMSTAR was substantial with a mean kappa of 0.70 ( 95 % confidence interval [ CI ] : 0.57 , 0.83 ) ( range : 0.38 - 1.0 ) . Kappas recorded for the other instruments were 0.63 ( 95 % CI : 0.38 , 0.78 ) for enhanced OQAQ and 0.40 ( 95 % CI : 0.29 , 0.50 ) for the Sacks ' instrument . The ICC of the total score for AMSTAR was 0.84 ( 95 % CI : 0.65 , 0.92 ) compared with 0.91 ( 95 % CI : 0.82 , 0.96 ) for OQAQ and 0.86 ( 95 % CI : 0.71 , 0.94 ) for the Sacks ' instrument . AMSTAR proved easy to apply , each review taking about 15 minutes to complete . CONCLUSIONS AMSTAR has good agreement , reliability , construct validity , and feasibility . These findings need confirmation by a broader range of assessors and a more diverse range of review AIMS The effectiveness of oseltamivir to improve seasonal influenza symptoms in clinical practice was analyzed using pooled data from patients who were also taking analgesics and other over-the-counter ( OTC ) medications .  METHODS Data were pooled from 1,709 patients aged 13 - 64 years with confirmed seasonal influenza who enrolled in six r and omized , placebo-controlled trials of oseltamivir ( 75 mg b.i.d . for 5 days ) and took OTC analgesics ( + / 
    Output:
    
Conclusions NI treatment is likely to be effective at reducing mortality among hospitalized patients , and symptom duration by up to 1 day in the general population .
Oseltamivir or zanamivir prophylaxis are likely to be effective at reducing secondary symptomatic influenza transmission .
Increased nausea and vomiting are likely associated with oseltamivir use .
Among hospitalized patients , NI administration seems warranted to reduce mortality risk