human
***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 It is possible that cross-over studies included in current systematic review s are being inadequately assessed , because the current risk of bias tools do not consider possible biases specific to cross-over design . We performed this study to evaluate whether this was being done in  cross-over studies included in Cochrane  Systematic Review s ( CSRs ) . Methods We search ed the Cochrane Library ( up to 2013 issue 5 ) for CSRs that included at least one cross-over trial . Two authors independently undertook the study selection and data extraction . A r and om sample of the CSRs was selected and we evaluated whether the cross-over trials in these CSRs were assessed according to criteria suggested by the Cochrane h and book . In addition we reassessed the risk of bias of these cross-over trials by a checklist developed form the Cochrane h and book . Results We identified 688 CSRs that included one or more cross-over studies . We chose a r and om sample of 60 CSRs and these included 139 cross-over studies . None of these CSRs undertook a risk of bias assessment specific for cross-over studies . In fact items specific for cross-over studies were seldom considered anywhere in quality assessment of these CSRs . When we reassessed the risk of bias , including the 3 items specific to cross-over trials , of these 139 studies , a low risk of bias was judged for appropriate cross-over design in 110(79 % ) , carry-over effects in 48(34 % ) and for reporting data in all stages of the trial in 114(82 % ) . Assessment of biases in cross-over trials could affect the GRADE assessment of a review ’s findings . Conclusion The current Cochrane risk of bias tool is not adequate to assess cross-over studies . Items specific to cross-over trials leading to potential risk of bias are generally neglected in CSRs . A proposed check list for the evaluation of cross-over trials is provided Background Footwear interventions are often prescribed to assist with the management of lower limb pain , injury and disease . Commercially available shoe insoles and orthoses are increasingly incorporating novel design features to alleviate foot and lower limb symptoms , but this may be at a cost to optimal functional performance . This study compared the immediate effects of wearing glycerine-filled insoles , contoured prefabricated orthoses , and flat insoles , on balance and gait measures . Methods Thirty healthy adults ( 17 men , 13 women ; mean [ SD ] age : 24.3 [ 2.5 ] years ) performed tests of single-leg st and ing with eyes open ( Kistler force platform ) , star excursion balance test , and level-ground walking ( GAITRite ® walkway system ) , under three r and omised conditions : wearing glycerine-filled insoles , prefabricated orthoses , and flat ( control ) insoles , within their own footwear . Centre of pressure movement ( anterior-posterior and mediolateral range and st and ard deviation , total path velocity ) , star excursion balance test reach distance , and temporospatial gait variables were collected . Perceived comfort of the inserts was scored immediately after use on a 100 mm visual analogue rating scale . After trialling all inserts each participant ranked their level of comfort from least to most . Results Centre of pressure measures , star excursion balance test reach distance , or temporospatial gait variables did not differ between the three inserts ( all P values > 0.088 ) . Significant between-condition differences were reported for comfort ranking ( P = 0.031 ) , but not rating scores ( P = 0.638 ) . Weak to moderate negative correlations ( r values ranged between −0.368 and −0.406 ) were observed between visual analogue scale comfort rating for the flat insoles and prefabricated orthoses , star excursion balance test and gait measures . Conclusions Single-leg st and ing balance , star excursion balance test performance , and level-ground walking patterns in  asymptomatic adults  do not appear to differ when wearing glycerine-filled insoles , contoured prefabricated orthoses , or flat insoles . Perceived comfort may be related to the biomechanical or clinical effectiveness of novel footwear interventions , and requires further investigation . Importantly , these findings are specific to a healthy population and further research is needed to determine the long-term effects of glycerine-filled insoles in patients with known balance impairments 
    Output:
    
agent
A moderate level of evidence was found in support of using cushioned material s in reducing discomfort/fatigue among st and ing workers .
A limited level of evidence exists in favour of using insoles over anti-fatigue mats .
***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 It is possible that cross-over studies included in current systematic review s are being inadequately assessed , because the current risk of bias tools do not consider possible biases specific to cross-over design . We performed this study to evaluate whether this was being done in  cross-over studies included in Cochrane  Systematic Review s ( CSRs ) . Methods We search ed the Cochrane Library ( up to 2013 issue 5 ) for CSRs that included at least one cross-over trial . Two authors independently undertook the study selection and data extraction . A r and om sample of the CSRs was selected and we evaluated whether the cross-over trials in these CSRs were assessed according to criteria suggested by the Cochrane h and book . In addition we reassessed the risk of bias of these cross-over trials by a checklist developed form the Cochrane h and book . Results We identified 688 CSRs that included one or more cross-over studies . We chose a r and om sample of 60 CSRs and these included 139 cross-over studies . None of these CSRs undertook a risk of bias assessment specific for cross-over studies . In fact items specific for cross-over studies were seldom considered anywhere in quality assessment of these CSRs . When we reassessed the risk of bias , including the 3 items specific to cross-over trials , of these 139 studies , a low risk of bias was judged for appropriate cross-over design in 110(79 % ) , carry-over effects in 48(34 % ) and for reporting data in all stages of the trial in 114(82 % ) . Assessment of biases in cross-over trials could affect the GRADE assessment of a review ’s findings . Conclusion The current Cochrane risk of bias tool is not adequate to assess cross-over studies . Items specific to cross-over trials leading to potential risk of bias are generally neglected in CSRs . A proposed check list for the evaluation of cross-over trials is provided Background Footwear interventions are often prescribed to assist with the management of lower limb pain , injury and disease . Commercially available shoe insoles and orthoses are increasingly incorporating novel design features to alleviate foot and lower limb symptoms , but this may be at a cost to optimal functional performance . This study compared the immediate effects of wearing glycerine-filled insoles , contoured prefabricated orthoses , and flat insoles , on balance and gait measures . Methods Thirty healthy adults ( 17 men , 13 women ; mean [ SD ] age : 24.3 [ 2.5 ] years ) performed tests of single-leg st and ing with eyes open ( Kistler force platform ) , star excursion balance test , and level-ground walking ( GAITRite ® walkway system ) , under three r and omised conditions : wearing glycerine-filled insoles , prefabricated orthoses , and flat ( control ) insoles , within their own footwear . Centre of pressure movement ( anterior-posterior and mediolateral range and st and ard deviation , total path velocity ) , star excursion balance test reach distance , and temporospatial gait variables were collected . Perceived comfort of the inserts was scored immediately after use on a 100 mm visual analogue rating scale . After trialling all inserts each participant ranked their level of comfort from least to most . Results Centre of pressure measures , star excursion balance test reach distance , or temporospatial gait variables did not differ between the three inserts ( all P values > 0.088 ) . Significant between-condition differences were reported for comfort ranking ( P = 0.031 ) , but not rating scores ( P = 0.638 ) . Weak to moderate negative correlations ( r values ranged between −0.368 and −0.406 ) were observed between visual analogue scale comfort rating for the flat insoles and prefabricated orthoses , star excursion balance test and gait measures . Conclusions Single-leg st and ing balance , star excursion balance test performance , and level-ground walking patterns in  asymptomatic adults  do not appear to differ when wearing glycerine-filled insoles , contoured prefabricated orthoses , or flat insoles . Perceived comfort may be related to the biomechanical or clinical effectiveness of novel footwear interventions , and requires further investigation . Importantly , these findings are specific to a healthy population and further research is needed to determine the long-term effects of glycerine-filled insoles in patients with known balance impairments 
    Output:
    