***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: AIM The aim of this r and omized controlled clinical trial was to evaluate the clinical effects of chlorhexidine ( CHX ) application in a full-mouth disinfection ( FMD ) protocol in poorly controlled type-2 diabetic subjects with generalized chronic periodontitis . MATERIAL AND METHODS Thirty-eight subjects were r and omly assigned into FMD group ( n=19 ) : full-mouth scaling and root planing ( FMSRP ) within 24 h + local application of CHX gel + CHX rinses for 60 days or Control group ( n = 19 ) : FMSRP within 24 h + local application of placebo gel + placebo rinses for 60 days . Clinical parameters , glycated haemoglobin and fasting plasma glucose were assessed at baseline , 3 , 6 and 12 months post-therapies . RESULTS All clinical parameters improved significantly at 3 , 6 and 12 months post-therapies for both groups ( p < 0.05 ) . There were no significant differences between groups for any clinical parameters , and glycemic condition at any time-point ( p > 0.05 ) . CONCLUSIONS The treatments did not differ with respect to clinical parameters , including the primary outcome variable ( i.e. changes in clinical attachment level in deep pockets ) , for up to 12 months post-treatments Objectives : The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of subgingivally administered xanthan-based chlorhexidine gel when used in the maintenance phase following scaling and root planing ( SRP ) in the treatment of chronic periodontitis . Material s and Methods : A r and omized , controlled , single-center study was conducted involving 92 sites in 46 systemically healthy patients suffering from moderate to advanced chronic periodontitis with isolated pockets . The selected sites were r and omized to two treatment arms : Group A ( SRP alone ) and Group B ( SRP + insertion of chlorhexidine gel after 1 month ) . The gingival index , plaque index , probing pocket depth ( PPD ) and clinical attachment level ( CAL ) were recorded at baseline and subsequently after 1 month and 3 months . Results : Both the groups showed significant reductions in PPD and CAL at both follow-up visits when compared with the baseline values ( P<0.001 ) . Conclusions : The results suggest that the application of xanthan based chlorhexidine gel following SRP in the maintenance phase might be beneficial in treatment of the chronic periodontitis in comparison to SRP alone . Greater improvements may be achieved when antimicrobial agents are used following SRP OBJECTIVES The beneficial effects of the one-stage , full-mouth disinfection remain controversial in the scientific literature . This might be due to the fact that an entire mouth disinfection with the use of antiseptics has been confused with a full-mouth scaling and root planing . This parallel , single blind RCT study aim ed to compare several full-mouth treatment strategies with each other . MATERIAL AND METHODS Seventy-one patients with moderate periodontitis were r and omly allocated to one of the following treatment strategies : scaling and root planing , quadrant by quadrant , at two-week intervals ( negative control , NC ) , full-mouth scaling and root planing within 2 consecutive days ( FRP ) , or three one-stage , full-mouth disinfection ( FM ) protocol s within 2 consecutive days applying antiseptics to all intra-oral niches for periopathogens using as antiseptics : chlorhexidine ( FMCHX ) for 2 months , amine fluoride/stannous fluoride for 2 months ( FMF ) , or chlorhexidine for 2 months followed by amine fluoride/stannous fluoride for another 6 months ( FMCHX+F ) . At baseline and after 2 , 4 , and 8 a series of periodontal parameters were recorded . RESULTS All treatment strategies result ed in significant ( p<0.05 ) improvements of all clinical parameters over the entire duration of the study . Inter-treatment differences were often encountered . The NC group nearly always showed significant smaller improvements than the two CHX groups . The differences between the FRP or FM groups , and the two CHX groups only sporadically reached a statistical significance . CONCLUSION These observations indicate that the benefits of the " OSFMD " protocol are partially due to the use of the antiseptics and partially to the completion of the therapy in a short time 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 Background : Local drug delivery agents can effectively deliver the antimicrobial drugs in bactericidal concentration , and have shown improved clinical outcomes when used as an adjunct to mechanical therapy . The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a xanthan-based 
    Output:
    
However , no difference was found in CAL gain .
Moreover , no significant difference was observed in PPD and CAL at both 3 and 6 months post-treatment between FMD and FMSRP .
Adjunctive subgingival administration of XAN-CHX gel at individual selected sites in NSPT appears to provide slight benefits in PPD reduction compared to NSPT alone for CP .