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: OBJECTIVE To determine whether administration of Lactobacillus reuteri ( L reuteri ) DSM 17938 is beneficial in breastfed infants with infantile colic . STUDY DESIGN Eighty infants aged < 5 months with infantile colic ( defined as crying episodes lasting 3 or more hours per day and occurring at least 3 days per week within 7 days prior to enrollment ) , who were exclusively or predominantly ( > 50 % ) breastfed were r and omly assigned to receive L reuteri DSM 17938 ( 10(8 ) colony-forming units ) ( n = 40 ) or an identically appearing and tasting placebo ( n = 40 ) , both orally , in 5 drops , 1 time daily , for 21 days . The primary outcome measures were the treatment success , defined as the percentage of children achieving a reduction in the daily average crying time ≥ 50 % , and the duration of crying ( minutes per day ) at 7 , 14 , 21 , and 28 days after r and omization . RESULTS The rate of responders to treatment was significantly higher in the probiotic group compared with the placebo group at day 7 ( P = .026 ) , at day 14 ( relative risk ( RR ) 4.3 , 95 % CI 2.3 - 8.7 ) , at day 21 ( RR 2.7 , 95 % CI 1.85 - 4.1 ) , and at day 28 ( RR 2.5 , 95 % CI 1.8 - 3.75 ) . In addition , throughout the study period , the median crying time was significantly reduced in the probiotic group compared with the control group . CONCLUSION Exclusively or predominantly breastfed infants with infantile colic benefit from the administration of L reuteri DSM 17938 compared with placebo Because infants with colic appear to have  abdominal pain  similar to that of adults with irritable bowel syndrome , who may benefit from the addition of fiber to their diet , we tested whether fiber added to infant formula would alleviate colic .  Twenty-seven normal , term infants ( aged 2 to 8 weeks ; 14 girls ) with colic , defined as crying plus fussing for more than 3 hours a day for at least 3 days of a 6-day baseline period , were enrolled . Infants were r and omly assigned in 9-day periods to a sequence of placebo ( Isomil formula ) followed by fiber-supplemented formula ( Isomil plus soy polysaccharide ) ( n = 12 ) or the reverse ( n = 15 ) . Daily diaries of crying , fussing , sleeping , formula , intake , and stooling were kept . Twenty-two infants completed three lactulose breath hydrogen tests at the end of the baseline period and after each study period . The crossover trial was followed by 30 to 35 days of use of the study formula chosen by the parents as most beneficial but unknown to the investigators . Growth was monitored throughout . Serum cholesterol , calcium , phosphate , albumin , iron , and zinc concentrations were measured at the conclusion . There were no significant differences in average daily time spent by the infants in fussing and crying during ingestion of the fiber-supplemented formula . However , parents of 18 of 27 infants chose fiber-supplemented formula as most beneficial in ameliorating symptoms of colic . While the infants were consuming fiber-supplemented formula , stool frequency increased , and breath hydrogen excretion increased significantly , in response to lactulose . Growth and serum biochemical measurements were normal in all infants . Supplementation of infant formula with the level of soy polysaccharide used in this study may have reduced crying and fussing in some infants but did not affect colicky behavior in the majority of infants , who continued to cry and fuss excessively AIM AND OBJECTIVE The aim of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of massage , sucrose solution , herbal tea or hydrolysed formula , each used individually in the treatment of infantile colic . BACKGROUND The term colic describes a group of symptoms that occur frequently in infants , consisting of paroxysmal abdominal pain and severe crying . Infant colic is of importance for both parents and the community health services that provide families with care , and is therefore an important clinical problem that is amenable to nursing interventions . DESIGN This prospect i ve and r and omised-controlled study involved 175 infants in Turkey . METHODS Data were gathered by using Wessel criteria ; parents wrote a daily structured diary , recording the onset and duration of crying . Patients were assigned r and omly into four different intervention groups ( massage , sucrose solution , herbal tea and hydrolysed formula ) and control group .  Duration of crying following each intervention was recorded in the diary by parents for a one week period . RESULTS There was a significant reduction in crying hours per day in all intervention groups . The difference between mean duration of total crying ( hours/day ) before and after the intervention infants in hydrolysed formula group was found higher than massage , sucrose and herbal tea group . The difference between mean duration of total crying(hours/day ) before and after the intervention infants in massage group was found lower than other intervention groups and all groups . CONCLUSION Our findings demonstrated that varied interventions such as administration of massage , sucrose solution , herbal tea and hydrolysed formula are effective in the treatment of colic . The difference between mean duration of total crying ( hours/day ) before and after the intervention in hydrolysed formula group was found higher than other intervention groups . Hydrolysed formula was the most effective in reducing the duration of crying ( hours/day ) when compared with the other intervention groups . Massage intervention yielded the least symptomatic improvement among all the interventions . RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE Colic treatment models used in this study can be used by nurses in neonatal and primary healthcare setting s as an aid to families for the treatment of infantile colic OBJECTIVE . The goal was to test the hypothesis that oral administration of Lactobacillus reuteri in a prospect i ve r and omized study would improve symptoms of infantile colic .  METHODS . Ninety breastfed colicky infants were assigned r and omly to receive either the probiotic L reuteri ( 108 live bacteria per day ) or simethicone ( 60 mg/day ) each day for 28 days . The mothers avoided cow 's milk in their diet . Parents monitored daily crying times and adverse effects by using a question naire . RESULTS . Eighty-three infants completed the trial : 41 in the probiotic group and 42 in the simethicone group . The infants were similar regarding gestational age , birth weight , gender , and crying time at baseline . Daily median crying times in the probiotic and simethicone groups were 159 minutes/day and 177 minutes/day , respectively , on the seventh day and 51 minutes/day and 145 minutes/day on the 28th day . On day 28 , 39 patients ( 95 % ) were responders in the probiotic group and 3 patients ( 7 % ) were responders in the simethicone group . No adverse effects were reported . CONCLUSIONS . In our cohort , L reuteri improved colicky symptoms in breastfed infants within 1 week of treatment , compared with simethicone , which suggests that probiotics may have a role in the treatment of infantile colic The number of published systematic review s of studies of healthcare interventions has increased rapidly and these are used extensively for clinical and policy decisions . Systematic review s are subject to a range of biases and increasingly include non-r and omised studies of interventions . It is important that users can distinguish high quality review s. Many instruments have been design ed to evaluate different aspects of review s , but there are few comprehensive critical appraisal instruments . AMSTAR was developed to evaluate systematic review s of r and omised trials . In this paper , we report on the updating of AMSTAR and its adaptation to enable more detailed assessment of systematic review s that include r and omised or non-r and omised studies of healthcare interventions , or both . With moves to base more decisions on real world observational evidence we believe that AMSTAR 2 will assist decision makers in the identification of high quality systematic review s , including those based on non-r and omised studies of healthcare interventions Context Clinicians rely on systematic review s for current , evidence -based information . Contribution This survival analysis of 100 meta-analyses indexed in ACP Journal Club from 1995 to 2005 found that new evidence that substantively changed conclusions about the effectiveness or harms of therapies arose frequently and within relatively short time periods . The median survival time without substantive new evidence for the meta-analyses was 5.5 years . Significant new evidence was already available for 7 % of the review s at the time of publication and became available for 23 % within 2 years . Implication Clinical ly important evidence that alters conclusions about the effectiveness and harms of treatments can accumulate rapidly . The Editors Systematic review s have become increasingly common in recent years ( 1 ) and are recommended by many as the best sources of evidence to guide both clinical decisions ( 2 ) and health care policy ( 3 ) . For systematic review s to fulfill these roles , their findings must remain relatively stable for at least several years or effective mechanisms must exist for alerting end users to important changes in evidence . Yet , surprisingly little research has assessed the extent to which systematic review s become out of date or the rate at which this occurs ( 47 ) . Some organizations , such as the Cochrane Collaboration , recommend updating systematic review s every 2 years , but few empirical data guide this or other recommendations about updating . We sought to determine how quickly systematic review s meet explicitly defined criteria for changes in evidence of sufficient importance to warrant updating . We also sought to identify predictors of survival time , the time to such important changes in evidence . Survival time might vary depending on many factors , including the type of question posed by the original review ( for example , therapeutic or diagnostic ) , the types of studies included ( for example , r and omized trials or observational studies ) , and whether the systematic review provided quantitative synthesis . To limit such variation , we focused on systematic review s of r and omized , controlled trials that evaluated therapeutic benefit or harm by providing quantitative synthesis ( meta- analysis ) for at least 1 outcome . Methods Study Design and Sample We used a quasi-r and om process ( alphabetical sort order by author ) to select 100 systematic review s that were indexed in ACP Journal Club with an accompanying commentary between January 1995 and December 2005 ( with a search date no later than 31 December 2004 to ensure at least 1 full year for new evidence to appear ) . We chose this sampling frame because ACP Journal Club selects systematic review s that meet explicit quality st and ards and are deemed directly relevant to clinical practice ( 8) . We regarded the sample size of 100 as sufficiently large to achieve suitably narrow confidence intervals and to permit evaluation of up to 5 potential predictors of survival . Eligibility Criteria Eligible review s evaluated the benefit or harm of a specific drug , class of drug , device , or procedure ( invasive procedure or surgery ) and included r and omized or quasi-r and omized , controlled trials . We excluded evaluations of alternative and complementary medicines because the stability of review s of such therapies might differ substantially from review s of conventional therapies . We required that review s provide a point estimate and 95 % confidence interval for at least 1 outcome in the form of a relative risk , odds ratio , or absolute risk difference for binary outcomes and weighted mean differences for continuous outcomes . We excluded meta-analyses of individual-patient data , meta-regressions , and indirect meta-analyses because of the difficulty of determining whether new data would alter previous quantitative results . Two team members independently assessed eligibility , with disagreements resolved by consensus involving a third review er . When more than 1 review on the same topic was identified , only the earliest was included . Search ing For each review , search es for new trials included identifying new systematic review s on the same topic , su bmi tting relevant content terms to the Clinical Queries function in Ovid , applying the Related Articles function in PubMed to the 3 largest and the 3 most recent trials in the original review ( up to 6 trials in total ) , and using Scopus ( www . scopus .com/ scopus /home.url ) to identify new r and omized trials that cited the original review . When these search strategies yielded no eligible new trials , we conducted more comprehensive electronic search es and review ed relevant chapters in such sources as Clinical Evidence and UpTo Date to ensure that we had not missed new trials . Team members who had background s in both medicine and clinical research screened citations retrieved by the preceding methods to identify trials that would have met the inclusion criteria in the original review . Retrieved articles were screened in chronological order to ascertain quantitative or qualitative signals for the need for updating . The review protocol stopped when any criteria for updating were met . Each systematic review was discussed in detail , with the final statussignal for updating was or was not detectedadjudicated by consensus ( Figure 1 ) . Figure 1 . Overall process for determining updating status . ACP Journal Club Signals for the Need to Up date Systematic Review s In design ing criteria for comparing new findings with those in a previous review , we adapted methods used by other investigators to address similar problems with comparing 2 sets of results relating to the same question ( 913 ) , such as r and omized and nonr and omized studies of the same intervention . These investigators identified conflicting findings among different publications using a combination of quantitative thresholds for differences in effect magnitude and qualitative judgments about the language used to describe the results . We have similarly conceptualized quantitative and qualitative signals of potential changes in evidence that are sufficiently important to warrant updating previous systematic review s. Quantitative Signals Quantitative signals consisted of a change in statistical significance or relative change in effect magnitude of at least 50 % . We restricted these changes to those involving 1 of the primary outcomes of the original review or any mortality outcome . We also ignored trivial changes in statistical significance when the original 
    Output:
    
agent
Probiotics , fennel extract  and  spinal manipulation  show promise to alleviate symptoms of colic , although some concerns remain .
***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: OBJECTIVE To determine whether administration of Lactobacillus reuteri ( L reuteri ) DSM 17938 is beneficial in breastfed infants with infantile colic . STUDY DESIGN Eighty infants aged < 5 months with infantile colic ( defined as crying episodes lasting 3 or more hours per day and occurring at least 3 days per week within 7 days prior to enrollment ) , who were exclusively or predominantly ( > 50 % ) breastfed were r and omly assigned to receive L reuteri DSM 17938 ( 10(8 ) colony-forming units ) ( n = 40 ) or an identically appearing and tasting placebo ( n = 40 ) , both orally , in 5 drops , 1 time daily , for 21 days . The primary outcome measures were the treatment success , defined as the percentage of children achieving a reduction in the daily average crying time ≥ 50 % , and the duration of crying ( minutes per day ) at 7 , 14 , 21 , and 28 days after r and omization . RESULTS The rate of responders to treatment was significantly higher in the probiotic group compared with the placebo group at day 7 ( P = .026 ) , at day 14 ( relative risk ( RR ) 4.3 , 95 % CI 2.3 - 8.7 ) , at day 21 ( RR 2.7 , 95 % CI 1.85 - 4.1 ) , and at day 28 ( RR 2.5 , 95 % CI 1.8 - 3.75 ) . In addition , throughout the study period , the median crying time was significantly reduced in the probiotic group compared with the control group . CONCLUSION Exclusively or predominantly breastfed infants with infantile colic benefit from the administration of L reuteri DSM 17938 compared with placebo Because infants with colic appear to have  abdominal pain  similar to that of adults with irritable bowel syndrome , who may benefit from the addition of fiber to their diet , we tested whether fiber added to infant formula would alleviate colic .  Twenty-seven normal , term infants ( aged 2 to 8 weeks ; 14 girls ) with colic , defined as crying plus fussing for more than 3 hours a day for at least 3 days of a 6-day baseline period , were enrolled . Infants were r and omly assigned in 9-day periods to a sequence of placebo ( Isomil formula ) followed by fiber-supplemented formula ( Isomil plus soy polysaccharide ) ( n = 12 ) or the reverse ( n = 15 ) . Daily diaries of crying , fussing , sleeping , formula , intake , and stooling were kept . Twenty-two infants completed three lactulose breath hydrogen tests at the end of the baseline period and after each study period . The crossover trial was followed by 30 to 35 days of use of the study formula chosen by the parents as most beneficial but unknown to the investigators . Growth was monitored throughout . Serum cholesterol , calcium , phosphate , albumin , iron , and zinc concentrations were measured at the conclusion . There were no significant differences in average daily time spent by the infants in fussing and crying during ingestion of the fiber-supplemented formula . However , parents of 18 of 27 infants chose fiber-supplemented formula as most beneficial in ameliorating symptoms of colic . While the infants were consuming fiber-supplemented formula , stool frequency increased , and breath hydrogen excretion increased significantly , in response to lactulose . Growth and serum biochemical measurements were normal in all infants . Supplementation of infant formula with the level of soy polysaccharide used in this study may have reduced crying and fussing in some infants but did not affect colicky behavior in the majority of infants , who continued to cry and fuss excessively AIM AND OBJECTIVE The aim of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of massage , sucrose solution , herbal tea or hydrolysed formula , each used individually in the treatment of infantile colic . BACKGROUND The term colic describes a group of symptoms that occur frequently in infants , consisting of paroxysmal abdominal pain and severe crying . Infant colic is of importance for both parents and the community health services that provide families with care , and is therefore an important clinical problem that is amenable to nursing interventions . DESIGN This prospect i ve and r and omised-controlled study involved 175 infants in Turkey . METHODS Data were gathered by using Wessel criteria ; parents wrote a daily structured diary , recording the onset and duration of crying . Patients were assigned r and omly into four different intervention groups ( massage , sucrose solution , herbal tea and hydrolysed formula ) and control group .  Duration of crying following each intervention was recorded in the diary by parents for a one week period . RESULTS There was a significant reduction in crying hours per day in all intervention groups . The difference between mean duration of total crying ( hours/day ) before and after the intervention infants in hydrolysed formula group was found higher than massage , sucrose and herbal tea group . The difference between mean duration of total crying(hours/day ) before and after the intervention infants in massage group was found lower than other intervention groups and all groups . CONCLUSION Our findings demonstrated that varied interventions such as administration of massage , sucrose solution , herbal tea and hydrolysed formula are effective in the treatment of colic . The difference between mean duration of total crying ( hours/day ) before and after the intervention in hydrolysed formula group was found higher than other intervention groups . Hydrolysed formula was the most effective in reducing the duration of crying ( hours/day ) when compared with the other intervention groups . Massage intervention yielded the least symptomatic improvement among all the interventions . RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE Colic treatment models used in this study can be used by nurses in neonatal and primary healthcare setting s as an aid to families for the treatment of infantile colic OBJECTIVE . The goal was to test the hypothesis that oral administration of Lactobacillus reuteri in a prospect i ve r and omized study would improve symptoms of infantile colic .  METHODS . Ninety breastfed colicky infants were assigned r and omly to receive either the probiotic L reuteri ( 108 live bacteria per day ) or simethicone ( 60 mg/day ) each day for 28 days . The mothers avoided cow 's milk in their diet . Parents monitored daily crying times and adverse effects by using a question naire . RESULTS . Eighty-three infants completed the trial : 41 in the probiotic group and 42 in the simethicone group . The infants were similar regarding gestational age , birth weight , gender , and crying time at baseline . Daily median crying times in the probiotic and simethicone groups were 159 minutes/day and 177 minutes/day , respectively , on the seventh day and 51 minutes/day and 145 minutes/day on the 28th day . On day 28 , 39 patients ( 95 % ) were responders in the probiotic group and 3 patients ( 7 % ) were responders in the simethicone group . No adverse effects were reported . CONCLUSIONS . In our cohort , L reuteri improved colicky symptoms in breastfed infants within 1 week of treatment , compared with simethicone , which suggests that probiotics may have a role in the treatment of infantile colic The number of published systematic review s of studies of healthcare interventions has increased rapidly and these are used extensively for clinical and policy decisions . Systematic review s are subject to a range of biases and increasingly include non-r and omised studies of interventions . It is important that users can distinguish high quality review s. Many instruments have been design ed to evaluate different aspects of review s , but there are few comprehensive critical appraisal instruments . AMSTAR was developed to evaluate systematic review s of r and omised trials . In this paper , we report on the updating of AMSTAR and its adaptation to enable more detailed assessment of systematic review s that include r and omised or non-r and omised studies of healthcare interventions , or both . With moves to base more decisions on real world observational evidence we believe that AMSTAR 2 will assist decision makers in the identification of high quality systematic review s , including those based on non-r and omised studies of healthcare interventions Context Clinicians rely on systematic review s for current , evidence -based information . Contribution This survival analysis of 100 meta-analyses indexed in ACP Journal Club from 1995 to 2005 found that new evidence that substantively changed conclusions about the effectiveness or harms of therapies arose frequently and within relatively short time periods . The median survival time without substantive new evidence for the meta-analyses was 5.5 years . Significant new evidence was already available for 7 % of the review s at the time of publication and became available for 23 % within 2 years . Implication Clinical ly important evidence that alters conclusions about the effectiveness and harms of treatments can accumulate rapidly . The Editors Systematic review s have become increasingly common in recent years ( 1 ) and are recommended by many as the best sources of evidence to guide both clinical decisions ( 2 ) and health care policy ( 3 ) . For systematic review s to fulfill these roles , their findings must remain relatively stable for at least several years or effective mechanisms must exist for alerting end users to important changes in evidence . Yet , surprisingly little research has assessed the extent to which systematic review s become out of date or the rate at which this occurs ( 47 ) . Some organizations , such as the Cochrane Collaboration , recommend updating systematic review s every 2 years , but few empirical data guide this or other recommendations about updating . We sought to determine how quickly systematic review s meet explicitly defined criteria for changes in evidence of sufficient importance to warrant updating . We also sought to identify predictors of survival time , the time to such important changes in evidence . Survival time might vary depending on many factors , including the type of question posed by the original review ( for example , therapeutic or diagnostic ) , the types of studies included ( for example , r and omized trials or observational studies ) , and whether the systematic review provided quantitative synthesis . To limit such variation , we focused on systematic review s of r and omized , controlled trials that evaluated therapeutic benefit or harm by providing quantitative synthesis ( meta- analysis ) for at least 1 outcome . Methods Study Design and Sample We used a quasi-r and om process ( alphabetical sort order by author ) to select 100 systematic review s that were indexed in ACP Journal Club with an accompanying commentary between January 1995 and December 2005 ( with a search date no later than 31 December 2004 to ensure at least 1 full year for new evidence to appear ) . We chose this sampling frame because ACP Journal Club selects systematic review s that meet explicit quality st and ards and are deemed directly relevant to clinical practice ( 8) . We regarded the sample size of 100 as sufficiently large to achieve suitably narrow confidence intervals and to permit evaluation of up to 5 potential predictors of survival . Eligibility Criteria Eligible review s evaluated the benefit or harm of a specific drug , class of drug , device , or procedure ( invasive procedure or surgery ) and included r and omized or quasi-r and omized , controlled trials . We excluded evaluations of alternative and complementary medicines because the stability of review s of such therapies might differ substantially from review s of conventional therapies . We required that review s provide a point estimate and 95 % confidence interval for at least 1 outcome in the form of a relative risk , odds ratio , or absolute risk difference for binary outcomes and weighted mean differences for continuous outcomes . We excluded meta-analyses of individual-patient data , meta-regressions , and indirect meta-analyses because of the difficulty of determining whether new data would alter previous quantitative results . Two team members independently assessed eligibility , with disagreements resolved by consensus involving a third review er . When more than 1 review on the same topic was identified , only the earliest was included . Search ing For each review , search es for new trials included identifying new systematic review s on the same topic , su bmi tting relevant content terms to the Clinical Queries function in Ovid , applying the Related Articles function in PubMed to the 3 largest and the 3 most recent trials in the original review ( up to 6 trials in total ) , and using Scopus ( www . scopus .com/ scopus /home.url ) to identify new r and omized trials that cited the original review . When these search strategies yielded no eligible new trials , we conducted more comprehensive electronic search es and review ed relevant chapters in such sources as Clinical Evidence and UpTo Date to ensure that we had not missed new trials . Team members who had background s in both medicine and clinical research screened citations retrieved by the preceding methods to identify trials that would have met the inclusion criteria in the original review . Retrieved articles were screened in chronological order to ascertain quantitative or qualitative signals for the need for updating . The review protocol stopped when any criteria for updating were met . Each systematic review was discussed in detail , with the final statussignal for updating was or was not detectedadjudicated by consensus ( Figure 1 ) . Figure 1 . Overall process for determining updating status . ACP Journal Club Signals for the Need to Up date Systematic Review s In design ing criteria for comparing new findings with those in a previous review , we adapted methods used by other investigators to address similar problems with comparing 2 sets of results relating to the same question ( 913 ) , such as r and omized and nonr and omized studies of the same intervention . These investigators identified conflicting findings among different publications using a combination of quantitative thresholds for differences in effect magnitude and qualitative judgments about the language used to describe the results . We have similarly conceptualized quantitative and qualitative signals of potential changes in evidence that are sufficiently important to warrant updating previous systematic review s. Quantitative Signals Quantitative signals consisted of a change in statistical significance or relative change in effect magnitude of at least 50 % . We restricted these changes to those involving 1 of the primary outcomes of the original review or any mortality outcome . We also ignored trivial changes in statistical significance when the original 
    Output:
    