***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: A study was conducted to estimate the accuracy and reliability of  review ers when screening records for relevant trials for a systematic review . A sensitive search of ten electronic bibliographic data bases yielded 22 571 records of potentially relevant trials . Records were allocated to four review ers such that two review ers examined each record and so that identification of trials by each review er could be compared with those identified by each of the other review ers . Agreement between review ers was assessed using Cohen 's kappa statistic . Ascertainment intersection methods were used to estimate the likely number of trials missed by review ers . Full copies of reports were obtained and assessed independently by two research ers for eligibility for the review . Eligible reports formed the ' gold st and ard ' against which an assessment was made about the accuracy of screening by review ers . After screening , 301 of 22 571 records were identified by at least one review er as potentially relevant . Agreement was ' almost perfect ' ( kappa>0.8 ) within two pairs , ' substantial ' ( kappa>0.6 ) within three pairs and ' moderate ' ( kappa>0.4 ) within one pair . Of the 301 records selected , 273 complete reports were available . When pairs of review ers agreed on the potential relevance of records , 81 per cent were eligible ( range 69 to 91 per cent ) . If review ers disagreed , 22 per cent were eligible ( range 12 to 45 per cent ) . Single review ers missed on average 8 per cent of eligible reports ( range 0 to 24 per cent ) , whereas pairs of review ers did not miss any ( range 0 to 1 per cent ) . The use of two review ers to screen records increased the number of r and omized trials identified by an average of 9 per cent ( range 0 to 32 per cent ) . Review ers can reliably identify potentially relevant records when screening thous and s of records for eligibility . Two review ers should screen records for eligibility , whenever possible , in order to maximize ascertainment of relevant trials BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE To conduct a pilot study to compare the frequency of errors that accompany single vs. double data extraction , compare the estimate of treatment effect derived from these methods , and compare the time requirements for these methods . METHODS Review ers were r and omized to the role of data extractor or data verifier , and were blind to the study hypothesis . The frequency of errors associated with each method of data extraction was compared using the McNemar test . The data set for each method was used to calculate an efficacy estimate by each method , using st and ard meta-analytic techniques . The time requirement for each method was compared using a paired t-test . RESULTS Single data extraction result ed in more errors than double data extraction ( relative difference : 21.7 % , P = .019 ) . There was no substantial difference between methods in effect estimates for most outcomes . The average time spent for single data extraction  was less than the average time for double data extraction ( relative difference : 36.1 % , P = .003 ) . CONCLUSION In the case that single data extraction is used in systematic review s , review ers and readers need to be mindful of the possibility for more errors and the potential impact these errors may have on effect estimates 
    Output:
    
There is evidence that survivors of childhood sexual abuse are significantly at risk of a wide range of medical , psychological , behavioral , and sexual disorders .
Relationships are small to medium in magnitudes and moderated by sample source and size .