***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: AIMS The aim of this study was to determine the occurrence and role of yeasts , enteric gram-negative rods and Enterococcus species in root-filled teeth with chronic apical periodontitis , and the antimicrobial effect of iodine potassium iodide ( IKI ) irrigation . METHODOLOGY Forty symptom-free root-filled teeth with chronic apical periodontitis were included in the study . The patients were divided into two groups . In group A the canals were filled with calcium hydroxide for 10 - 14 days after cleaning and shaping ; in group B the canals were irrigated with IKI for 5 min after cleaning and shaping followed by a permanent root filling . Microbiological sample s were taken from the canals before and after the chemomechanical preparation and after iodine irrigation ( group B ) . RESULTS Microbes were isolated from 33 of 40 teeth in the initial sampling . Yeasts were isolated from six teeth , three of them together with E. faecalis . Enteric rods ( Escherichia coli , Klebsiella pneumoniae and Proteus mirabilis ) were present in three teeth and E. faecalis was isolated from 21 of the 33 culture positive teeth , 11 in pure culture . Growth was detected in 10 teeth of the second sample s. Six of the 10 cases were E. faecalis , with five being a pure culture . All third sample s ( after IKI ) except one were negative . The number of microbial cells per sample did not correlate with lesion size . Two flare-ups were recorded , both in teeth with a mixed infection . CONCLUSION The high prevalence of enteric bacteria and yeasts in root-filled teeth with chronic apical periodontitis was established . IKI improved the antimicrobial effect of the treatment Traditional clinical review articles , also known as up date s , differ from systematic review s and meta-analyses . Up date s selectively review the medical literature while discussing a topic broadly . Non-quantitative systematic review s comprehensively examine the medical literature , seeking to identify and synthesize all relevant information to formulate the best approach to diagnosis or treatment . Meta-analyses ( quantitative systematic review s ) seek to answer a focused clinical question , using rigorous statistical analysis of pooled research studies . This article presents guidelines for writing an evidence -based clinical review article for American Family Physician . First , the topic should be of common interest and relevance to family practice . Include a table of the continuing medical education objectives of the review . State how the literature search was done and include several sources of evidence -based review s , such as the Cochrane Collaboration , BMJ 's Clinical Evidence , or the InfoRetriever Web site . Where possible , use evidence based on clinical outcomes relating to morbidity , mortality , or quality of life , and studies of primary care population s. In articles su bmi tted to American Family Physician , rate the level of evidence for key recommendations according to the following scale : level A ( r and omized controlled trial [ RCT ] , meta- analysis ) ; level B ( other evidence ) ; level C ( consensus/expert opinion ) . Finally , provide a table of key summary points In many areas of medicine the amount of published information is increasing at an exponential rate , making it difficult for the clinician to condense the data to a manageable amount of valuable and useful information . Systematic review s have been suggested as a remedy for this information overload . Such review s are regarded as the highest level of evidence . Certain statistical methods , e.g. , meta- analysis , have also been introduced for the calculation of a more comprehensive summation of the compiled results from studies with small sample sizes . These findings would then serve as an authoritarian guide for evidence -based practice . Endodontists have lately jumped on the b and wagon of systematic review s and meta-analyses , and papers on various topics are being published . Well done , such comprehensive information would be very useful and authoritative for the practitioner . Alarmingly , the quality of these recent publications is negatively correlated to the frequency . This can have serious consequences in the clinical arena if spurious information is given a seal of approval when communicated as facts in refereed journals . A systematic literature review is design ed to focus on a single question and to synthesize all high- quality research reports relevant to the question . In these studies , however , sources of bias are often not controlled . Therefore , even the best review and meta- analysis becomes useless if it is based on poorly design ed research . Furthermore , these review s are mostly based on published data which are too often biased toward studies that show significant differences in results and /or outcome . “ Uninteresting ” conclusions tend not to be published . Endodontic literature , thus far , is short on well design ed and executed r and omized clinical trials . Furthermore , clinical protocol s often have many important “ proprietary ” modifications that make comparison difficult . This makes it very hard to undertake a systematic review to answer a narrow question . Such GIGO ( garbage in , garbage out ) can easily lead to biased conclusions and reinforce already existing biased comclusions . An example of such bias can be illustrated by a meta- analysis recently published . The study focused on assessing if there were differences in outcome between 1 and 2 treatment visits when treating teeth with apical periodontitis . Relevant publications on this topic are rare , and with the narrow inclusion criteria only 3 investigations were available for the review . However , the only factors connecting these 3 studies was the words “ single ” and “ two visits ” in the title . Beyond that , the selected studies are too different and inadequate for the study . Only 1 study is somewhat demonstrably r and omized , and outcome assessment s are based on 3 vastly different criteria . Two of the studies use calcium hydroxide as intracanal dressing , whereas the third uses no intervisit medication . Complexity of initial pathology and healing time are also clearly factors of great importance but not controlled . In addition , sample sizes in the component studies as well as the final cohort are all too small for the conclusions that there was no significant difference between 1or 2-visit treatment protocol s. To undertake and publish a meta- analysis on such an incomplete sample is counterproductive . Although the publication noted its numerous limitations , it will still communicate erroneous conclusions with a poor scientific foundation to the less informed reader . There are other examples of recently published systematic review s that are very ambiguous and tend to communicate spurious facts . One of these studies looks at the effect of smear-layer removal on sealing ability of root canal obturation . The study is entirely limited to laboratory experiments , with the majority of evaluations using dye leakage which is generally considered to be unreliable . This is an example of review ers lacking content expertise . The authors draw the conclusion , using defective review material , that removal of smear layer enhances the seal of the root filling . We may generally believe that this is the truth 
    Output:
    
In conclusion , NaOCl or CHX showed low ability to eliminate E. faecalis when evaluated by either PCR or culture techniques