***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: The efficacy of a communication skills training programme was shown through a r and omised trial . Oncologists ( N=160 ) from 34 cancer centres were allocated to written feedback plus course ; course alone ; written feedback alone or control .  Each clinician had 6 – 10 interviews  with patients videotaped at baseline and 3 months postintervention . Analysis of videotapes revealed improvements in the communication skills of clinicians r and omised to training ( n=80 ) compared with others ( n=80 ) . A 12-month follow-up assessment is reported here . Robust Poisson conditional analyses of counts of changes in communication behaviours revealed no demonstrable attrition in those who had shown improvement previously , including fewer leading questions , appropriate use of focused and open-ended questions and responses to patient cues . Additional skills , not apparent at 3 months , were now evident ; the estimated effect sizes corresponded to 81 % fewer interruptions ( P=0.001 ) and increased summarising of information to 38 % ( P=0.038 ) . However , expressions of empathy ( 54 % , P=0.001 ) declined . The overall results show that 12 – 15 months postintervention , clinicians had integrated key communication skills into clinical practice and were applying others . This is the first RCT to show an enduring effect of communication skills training with transfer into the clinic Systematic Review Series Series Editors : Cynthia Mulrow , MD , MSc Deborah Cook , MD , MSc The last article in this series outlined methods with which to search the literature for studies on the clinical question that generates a systematic review [ 1 ] . Herein , we discuss the subsequent steps of selecting and appraising  studies  for a review . Both of these steps involve important judgments that can influence the results of a review . In selecting studies , review ers judge the relevance of the studies to the review question . In appraising studies , review ers judge numerous features of design and analysis . Some of these judgments are easy to make ; others are more difficult and prone to error . To be confident in their decisions , review ers should use methods that are reliable ( the results do not change if the procedure is repeated ) , impartial ( not influenced by the study results ) , and explicit ( unambiguous ) [ 2 ] . These strategies for selection and appraisal are sensible , and they distinguish most systematic review s from most narrative review s. However , evidence to support the importance of some of the methods we suggest is either scant or conflicting ; readers are referred to the original research on these approaches for more details . Selecting Studies for Systematic Review s If review ers perform a comprehensive search of the literature using the methods described previously in this series [ 1 ] , they will probably have assembled a large sample of articles . This sample will include most ( ideally , all ) studies that are relevant to the review question ( that is , the sensitivity of the search will be high ) . Inevitably , because such a wide net is cast , articles not pertinent to the clinical question will be retrieved ( that is , the specificity of the search will be modest ) . Thus , the review ers ' next task is to sort through all of the potentially relevant articles and select those that will be included in the review . To do so , review ers adopt several of the tactics listed in Table 1 and Table 2 for planning and executing the selection process ( in effect , improving the specificity of the search ) ; these tactics are described below . Table 1 . Planning Study Selection Table 2 . Strategies for Selecting and Appraising Studies Begin with a Well-Built Clinical Question Review ers should ensure that the question for review includes the four elements of a well-built clinical question [ 3 , 4 ] : the patients of interest , the main interventions under investigation , the comparison interventions , and the clinical outcomes of interest . By including these four elements , review ers can better focus the selection process . Choose Selection Criteria That Fit the Clinical Question Consider a systematic review of the effectiveness of a drug treatment ( for example , a proton-pump inhibitor ) for patients with a particular disorder ( such as esophageal reflux ) . Review ers need to decide whether to include studies of patients with any symptoms of reflux , only those with classic symptoms , or only those in whom definitive diagnostic tests have confirmed the presence of reflux . In addition , review ers might choose to include studies of patients with different comorbid conditions ; patients from different demographic or geographic or cultural background s ; or patients from different health systems , such as inpatient or community population s. Similarly , review ers should use selection criteria that reflect the main and comparison interventions of interest . In our esophageal reflux example , review ers would need to decide whether to include studies of a particular drug or studies of all agents in that drug 's class and whether to include studies of any dose and regimen or only studies with a specific regimen . For the comparison interventions , the review ers would decide whether to include studies that compare the experimental drug with alternate treatments ( such as antacids or histamine-2-receptor antagonists ) , with placebo , or with both . For the clinical outcomes , review ers have analogous tasks of defining the outcomes and translating them into criteria . In our example , the review ers would start by listing each clinical outcome ( for example , whether the outcome was endoscopic or clinical and whether it focused on cure or persistence ) and then decide whether to include studies that reported any outcome or only those with certain clinical ly important outcomes ( such as improvement in symptoms at 1 year ) . After thoroughly considering each element of the review question , review ers compile a set of explicit selection criteria . When these criteria are not explicit , the results of the review are more prone to error [ 5 , 6 ] . Reporting the selection criteria used in a review is extremely important to readers because the criteria indicate the relevance of the review to the readers ' clinical practice . Specify the Types of Study Design To Be Included After creating selection criteria that appropriately reflect the review question , review ers should consider which study design s to include . Ideally , review ers choose study design s that are most likely to produce valid results . For example , to answer questions about therapy or harm , review ers may want to include r and omized trials [ 7 ] because they provide more accurate estimates of benefit or harm than do cohort studies , casecontrol studies , and case series [ 8 ] . In reality , however , r and omized trials may not be conducted to address questions of harm [ 9 ] . Therefore , review ers need to consider which study design s are likely to be available to answer their question ; this information may necessitate modification of originally conceptualized selection criteria to incorporate observational ( nonexperimental ) studies . Specify Criteria Related to Type and Form of Publication Review ers also need to consider issues related to type and form of publication . Ideally , all of the relevant studies would be published as peer- review ed journal articles . However , some completed studies may be published only as abstract s , in non-peer- review ed form , or not at all . Review ers decide whether to include these incompletely reported studies when planning their literature search . By including all articles in various stages of publication and subjecting them to rigorous critical appraisal , review ers minimize the threat of publication bias ( the preferential reporting of studies with positive results ) [ 10 - 12 ] , which could generate misleading review s. Other studies may be reported more than once . To avoid over-representing duplicate studies in the review , investigators should plan to look for and exclude duplicate publications [ 13 ] . Finally , because studies may be published in different language s and because excluding studies published in different language s may bias the results of review s [ 14 , 15 ] , articles should be included , as appropriate , regardless of the language of publication ( translating as necessary ) . Limited time and re sources , however , may preclude such an approach . Construct and Pretest Selection Forms After deciding on selection criteria , review ers can prepare customized forms that contain checklists of the selection criteria ( Figure 1 ) . Using these forms can simplify the selection process , increase reliability , and provide a record of the judgments made about each study . After drafting form prototypes , review ers pretest these forms for clarity , ease of application , and reliability . To pretest the forms , two or more independent review ers typically apply them to a r and om sample of studies identified by the literature search . Review ers compare their results to identify sources of ambiguity and then revise the forms accordingly . If the revisions are substantial , this process may need to be repeated before the forms can be used . Figure 1 . Example of a form that might be developed for the selection of studies for a systematic review evaluating the efficacy of -blockers for secondary prevention of variceal bleeding .  Write a Detailed Protocol Having a selection protocol as part of a larger protocol for the entire review helps review ers in two ways . First , it provides a document that explicitly states the review question and the selection criteria , making the process accountable . Review ers can later return to the protocol for guidance in resolving disagreements about article selection . Second , the selection protocol identifies what work will be done , by whom , in what manner , when , and for what reason ; thus , it provides a mode of communication within the review team . When review ers have a very large sample of studies from which to select , they can simplify this task by review ing all of the titles , then the abstract s , and then the full articles , excluding studies that do not meet one or more selection criteria at each step . In doing so , review ers should record ( on the selection forms ) the reasons for exclusion . After review ers have selected studies for the systematic review , they will move to the next task of critical appraisal . This procedure also requires careful planning . Appraising Studies for Systematic Review s Review ers appraise the studies selected for review with three objectives in mind : 1 ) to underst and the validity of the studies , 2 ) to uncover reasons for differences among study results other than chance , and 3 ) to provide readers with sufficient information with which to judge for themselves the applicability of the systematic review to their clinical practice . To achieve these goals , review ers use the strategies outlined in Table 2 and Table 3 to carefully reexamine many important features of the primary studies . Table 3 . Planning Study Appraisal Examine Important Clinical Features Although the selection criteria for a systematic review define the population , interventions , and outcomes of interest , the appraisal process involves a detailed assessment of the patients ( for example , high , medium , or low risk ) , the study interventions ( for example , frequency , degree , and duration ) , and the outcome measurements ( for example , definitions and degree of surveillance ) AIMS To evaluate the effects of a palliative care education programme on the self-reported knowledge and confidence of 72 community nurses . DESIGN a prospect i ve longitudinal postal question naire survey was conducted . FINDINGS seventy-one ( 99 % ) completed a pre-course question naire , 52 ( 72 % ) a question naire at completion of the course , and 37 ( 51 % ) a question naire one year later . Following the programme , more nurses felt that their professional needs were being met well or very well . Confidence in practice showed an increasing trend over time . Desire for education was lower on course completion than at its start . Palliative Care Nursing Quiz scores rose from a pre-course median of 12.5 to 15 at course completion ( P=0.001 ) which was maintained 1 year later . CONCLUSION the education programme was successful in raising st and ards of knowledge , professional development and confidence . Improvement was maintained one year later Prompted by directives from the GMC , ‘ care of the dying ’ is identified as ‘ core curricula ’ for undergraduate medical education . However , there are many technical and interpersonal challenges faced in learning the practice of palliative medicine . Accordingly , the design and delivery of education programmes need to be both carefully considered and evaluated . Using B and ura ’s Social Cognitive Theory as a driver , appropriate methodology for evaluating a novel education programme in palliative medicine was drafted . A pre- and post-survey of an education programme and palliative care placement  for fourth year medical undergraduate students from Liverpool University ( n = 216 ) was completed using a composite question naire containing ; i )  Self-efficacy in Palliative Care Scale ( SEPC ) and ii )  Thanatophobia Scale . Both scales have shown reliability and validity within the sample population . Additionally , a r and omly selected Focus Group was conducted to provide qualitative information on the students ’ experience . A total of 139 pre- and post- question naires ( 64 % ) were completed . Analysis identified significant improvements in perceived efficacy ( SEPC Communication t = −16.41 , P < 0.001 ; SEPC Patient Management t = −22.31 , P < 0.001 ; SEPC Multidisciplinary Teamwork t = −15.56 , P < 0.001 ) . Significant improvements in thanatophobia were also recorded ( z = −7.51 , P < 0.001 ) although some interesting anomalies were noted . This study demonstrates that considered and appropriately structured clinical education has been shown to significantly improve  students ’ belief in their ability to practice palliative medicine and to improve their attitude towards care . In accordance with the study ’s theoretical driver , it is reasonable to propose that the engaged active learning will have a positive effect on the future care of dying patients We surveyed primary care physicians about their involvement and perceived skills in palliative care .  A survey instrument asked how frequently internal medicine and family practice physicians performed 10 palliative care items . Subjects rated their skills in each area . A majority of physicians always or frequently performed all 10 palliative care items , but fewer than 50 % of respondents adequately attended to the spiritual needs and economic problems of patients . Interest in palliative care was associated with an increased frequency in performing palliative care items ( P = 0.036 ) , while training in palliative care was associated with better perceived performance ( P = 0.05 ) . Only 36 % of respondents had received training in palliative care . Internists and family practitioners provide palliative care to patients , but feel their skills are lacking in certain areas . Training may improve care to patients at the end of life This quasiexperimental study examined the effect of an educational program on attitudes toward caring for terminally ill persons and their families . Participants were 115 undergraduate students : intervention group , N = 49 ; control group , N = 66 . Pre and post-intervention measurements were done with the Frommelt Attitude Toward Care of the Dying Scale ( FATCOD , Form B ) . Students in the intervention group participated in a semester-long ( 15-week , 45-hour ) educational program . Demographic variables , including age , gender , religion , major area of study , influence of religious beliefs , profession , previous education , and past or present experience 
    Output:
    
Overall , a lack of validation and a focus upon the physical aspects of symptom management was apparent .