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 assess the efficacy of individualized classical homeopathy in the treatment of fibromyalgia . METHODS This study was a double-blind , r and omized , parallel-group , placebo-controlled trial of homeopathy .  Community-recruited persons ( N = 62 ) with physician-confirmed fibromyalgia ( mean age 49 yr , s.d . 10 yr , 94 % women ) were treated in a homeopathic private practice setting . Participants were r and omized to receive oral daily liquid LM ( 1/50,000 ) potencies with an individually chosen homeopathic remedy or an indistinguishable placebo . Homeopathic visits involved joint interviews and concurrence on remedy selection by two experienced homeopaths , at baseline , 2 months and 4 months ( prior to a subsequent optional crossover phase of the study which is reported elsewhere ) . Tender point count and tender point pain on examination by a medical assessor uninvolved in providing care , self-rating scales on fibromyalgia-related quality of life , pain , mood and global health at baseline and 3 months , were the primary clinical outcome measures for this report . RESULTS Fifty-three people completed the treatment protocol . Participants on active treatment showed significantly greater improvements in tender point count and tender point pain , quality of life , global health and a trend toward less depression compared with those on placebo . CONCLUSIONS This study replicates and extends a previous 1-month placebo-controlled crossover study in fibromyalgia that pre-screened for only one homeopathic remedy . Using a broad selection of remedies and the flexible LM dose ( 1/50,000 dilution factor ) series , the present study demonstrated that individualized homeopathy is significantly better than placebo in lessening tender point pain and improving the quality of life and global health of persons with fibromyalgia OBJECTIVES To assess the feasibility of a R and omised Controlled Trial ( RCT ) design of usual care compared with usual care plus adjunctive care by a homeopath for patients with Fibromyalgia syndrome ( FMS ) . METHODS In a pragmatic parallel group RCT design , adults with a diagnosis of FMS ( ACR criteria ) were r and omly allocated to usual care or usual care plus adjunctive care by a homeopath . Adjunctive care consisted of five in depth interviews and individualised homeopathic medicines . The primary outcome measure was the difference in Fibromyalgia Impact Question naire ( FIQ ) total score at 22 weeks . RESULTS 47 patients were recruited .  Drop out rate in the usual care group was higher than the homeopath care group ( 8/24 vs 3/23 ) . Adjusted for baseline , there was a significantly greater mean reduction in the FIQ total score ( function ) in the homeopath care group than the usual care group ( -7.62 vs 3.63 ) . There were significantly greater reductions in the homeopath care group in the McGill pain score , FIQ fatigue and tiredness upon waking scores . We found a small effect on pain score ( 0.21 , 95 % CI -1.42 to 1.84 ) ; but a large effect on function ( 0.81 , 95 % CI -8.17 to 9.79 ) . There were no reported adverse events . CONCLUSIONS Given the acceptability of the treatment and the clinical ly relevant effect on function , there is a need for a definitive study to assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of adjunctive healthcare by a homeopath for patients with FMS 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 and up date d meta-analytic results both had P values between 0.04 and 0.06so that quantitative signals of changes in evidence would represent robust indicators of the need to up date previous review s. Quantitative signals were detected by combining data from eligible new trials with the previous results using a fixed-effects approach . Use of fixed-effect models allowed pooling of the new trials with the previous meta-analytic result , as opposed to having to obtain original data from all of the included trials in each of 100 systematic review s. Although r and om-effects models are usually preferred to avoid spurious precision in the face of heterogeneity , our goal was to detect potential changes in evidence that would warrant a formal up date , not produce exact estimates of the up date d results . Qualitative Signals Qualitative signals included new information about harm sufficient to affect clinical decision making , important caveats to the original results , emergence of a superior alternate therapy , and important changes in certainty or direction of effect . Qualitative signals were detected by using explicit criteria for comparing the language in the original review with descriptions of findings in new systematic review s that addressed the same topic , pivotal trials , clinical practice guidelines , or recent editions of major textbooks ( for example , UpTo Date ) . Pivotal trials were defined as trials that had a sample size at least 3 times larger than that of the previous largest trial or were published in 1 of the 5 highest-impact general medical journals ( The New Engl and Journal of Medicine , Lancet , Journal of the American Medical Association , Annals of Internal Medicine , and the British Medical Journal ) . We defined 2 levels of importance for qualitative signals : potentially invalidating changes in evidence , which would make one no longer want clinicians or policymakers to base decisions on the original findings ( such as a pivotal trial that characterized treatment effectiveness in terms opposite of those in the original systematic review ) , and major changes in evidence , which would affect clinical decision making in important ways without invalidating the previous results ( such as the identification of patient population s for whom treatment is more or less beneficial ) . Major changes also included differing characterizations of effectiveness that were less extreme than those for potentially invalidating signals but that would still affect clinical decision making ( for example , a change from possibly beneficial to definitely beneficial ) . Of importance , such characterizations as possibly effective , probably effective , and promising , were all categorized as possibly effective . Thus , qualitative signals for changes in evidence captured substantive differences in the characterization of treatment effects , not merely semantic differences . Full definitions for each of the specific signals can be found at www.ohri.ca/UpdatingSystRevs . Data Collection For each review , we characterized the clinical content area , eligibility criteria for included trials , definitions of reported outcomes , number of included trials and participants , meta-analytic result for each outcome , identification of statistical heterogeneity , and excerpted quotations of the authors ' characterizations of the main results . We also abstract ed whether a given outcome was explicitly identified as 1 of the primary or main outcomes . We discounted identification of more than 3 such outcomes as inconsistent with the OBJECTIVE Our purpose was to measure the agreement , reliability , construct validity , and feasibility of a measurement tool to assess  systematic review s ( AMSTAR ) . STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING We r and omly selected 30 systematic review s from a data base . Each was assessed by two review ers using : ( 1 ) the enhanced quality assessment question naire ( Overview of Quality Assessment Question naire [ OQAQ ] ) ; ( 2 ) Sacks ' instrument ; and ( 3 ) our newly developed measurement tool ( AMSTAR ) . We report on reliability ( interobserver kappas of the 11 AMSTAR items ) , intraclass correlation coefficients ( ICCs ) of the sum scores , construct validity ( ICCs of the sum scores of AMSTAR compared with those of other instruments ) , and completion times . RESULTS The interrater agreement of the individual items of AMSTAR was substantial with a mean kappa of 0.70 ( 95 % confidence interval [ CI ] : 0.57 , 0.83 ) ( range : 0.38 - 1.0 ) . Kappas recorded for the other instruments were 0.63 ( 95 % CI : 0.38 , 0.78 ) for enhanced OQAQ and 0.40 ( 95 % CI : 0.29 , 0.50 ) for the Sacks ' instrument . The ICC of the total score for AMSTAR was 0.84 ( 95 % CI : 0.65 , 0.92 ) compared with 0.91 ( 95 % CI : 0.82 , 0.96 ) for OQAQ and 0.86 ( 95 % CI : 0.71 , 0.94 ) for the Sacks ' instrument . AMSTAR proved easy to apply , each review taking about 15 minutes to complete . CONCLUSIONS AMSTAR has good agreement , reliability , construct validity , and feasibility . These findings need confirmation by a broader range of assessors and a more 
    Output:
    
agent
There was low- quality evidence that acupuncture  improves pain compared to no treatment or st and ard treatment , but good evidence that it is no better than sham acupuncture .
The evidence for homoeopathy , spinal manipulation and herbal medicine was limited .
No firm conclusions were drawn for efficacy of either spinal manipulation or homoeopathy for FM .
***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 assess the efficacy of individualized classical homeopathy in the treatment of fibromyalgia . METHODS This study was a double-blind , r and omized , parallel-group , placebo-controlled trial of homeopathy .  Community-recruited persons ( N = 62 ) with physician-confirmed fibromyalgia ( mean age 49 yr , s.d . 10 yr , 94 % women ) were treated in a homeopathic private practice setting . Participants were r and omized to receive oral daily liquid LM ( 1/50,000 ) potencies with an individually chosen homeopathic remedy or an indistinguishable placebo . Homeopathic visits involved joint interviews and concurrence on remedy selection by two experienced homeopaths , at baseline , 2 months and 4 months ( prior to a subsequent optional crossover phase of the study which is reported elsewhere ) . Tender point count and tender point pain on examination by a medical assessor uninvolved in providing care , self-rating scales on fibromyalgia-related quality of life , pain , mood and global health at baseline and 3 months , were the primary clinical outcome measures for this report . RESULTS Fifty-three people completed the treatment protocol . Participants on active treatment showed significantly greater improvements in tender point count and tender point pain , quality of life , global health and a trend toward less depression compared with those on placebo . CONCLUSIONS This study replicates and extends a previous 1-month placebo-controlled crossover study in fibromyalgia that pre-screened for only one homeopathic remedy . Using a broad selection of remedies and the flexible LM dose ( 1/50,000 dilution factor ) series , the present study demonstrated that individualized homeopathy is significantly better than placebo in lessening tender point pain and improving the quality of life and global health of persons with fibromyalgia OBJECTIVES To assess the feasibility of a R and omised Controlled Trial ( RCT ) design of usual care compared with usual care plus adjunctive care by a homeopath for patients with Fibromyalgia syndrome ( FMS ) . METHODS In a pragmatic parallel group RCT design , adults with a diagnosis of FMS ( ACR criteria ) were r and omly allocated to usual care or usual care plus adjunctive care by a homeopath . Adjunctive care consisted of five in depth interviews and individualised homeopathic medicines . The primary outcome measure was the difference in Fibromyalgia Impact Question naire ( FIQ ) total score at 22 weeks . RESULTS 47 patients were recruited .  Drop out rate in the usual care group was higher than the homeopath care group ( 8/24 vs 3/23 ) . Adjusted for baseline , there was a significantly greater mean reduction in the FIQ total score ( function ) in the homeopath care group than the usual care group ( -7.62 vs 3.63 ) . There were significantly greater reductions in the homeopath care group in the McGill pain score , FIQ fatigue and tiredness upon waking scores . We found a small effect on pain score ( 0.21 , 95 % CI -1.42 to 1.84 ) ; but a large effect on function ( 0.81 , 95 % CI -8.17 to 9.79 ) . There were no reported adverse events . CONCLUSIONS Given the acceptability of the treatment and the clinical ly relevant effect on function , there is a need for a definitive study to assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of adjunctive healthcare by a homeopath for patients with FMS 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 and up date d meta-analytic results both had P values between 0.04 and 0.06so that quantitative signals of changes in evidence would represent robust indicators of the need to up date previous review s. Quantitative signals were detected by combining data from eligible new trials with the previous results using a fixed-effects approach . Use of fixed-effect models allowed pooling of the new trials with the previous meta-analytic result , as opposed to having to obtain original data from all of the included trials in each of 100 systematic review s. Although r and om-effects models are usually preferred to avoid spurious precision in the face of heterogeneity , our goal was to detect potential changes in evidence that would warrant a formal up date , not produce exact estimates of the up date d results . Qualitative Signals Qualitative signals included new information about harm sufficient to affect clinical decision making , important caveats to the original results , emergence of a superior alternate therapy , and important changes in certainty or direction of effect . Qualitative signals were detected by using explicit criteria for comparing the language in the original review with descriptions of findings in new systematic review s that addressed the same topic , pivotal trials , clinical practice guidelines , or recent editions of major textbooks ( for example , UpTo Date ) . Pivotal trials were defined as trials that had a sample size at least 3 times larger than that of the previous largest trial or were published in 1 of the 5 highest-impact general medical journals ( The New Engl and Journal of Medicine , Lancet , Journal of the American Medical Association , Annals of Internal Medicine , and the British Medical Journal ) . We defined 2 levels of importance for qualitative signals : potentially invalidating changes in evidence , which would make one no longer want clinicians or policymakers to base decisions on the original findings ( such as a pivotal trial that characterized treatment effectiveness in terms opposite of those in the original systematic review ) , and major changes in evidence , which would affect clinical decision making in important ways without invalidating the previous results ( such as the identification of patient population s for whom treatment is more or less beneficial ) . Major changes also included differing characterizations of effectiveness that were less extreme than those for potentially invalidating signals but that would still affect clinical decision making ( for example , a change from possibly beneficial to definitely beneficial ) . Of importance , such characterizations as possibly effective , probably effective , and promising , were all categorized as possibly effective . Thus , qualitative signals for changes in evidence captured substantive differences in the characterization of treatment effects , not merely semantic differences . Full definitions for each of the specific signals can be found at www.ohri.ca/UpdatingSystRevs . Data Collection For each review , we characterized the clinical content area , eligibility criteria for included trials , definitions of reported outcomes , number of included trials and participants , meta-analytic result for each outcome , identification of statistical heterogeneity , and excerpted quotations of the authors ' characterizations of the main results . We also abstract ed whether a given outcome was explicitly identified as 1 of the primary or main outcomes . We discounted identification of more than 3 such outcomes as inconsistent with the OBJECTIVE Our purpose was to measure the agreement , reliability , construct validity , and feasibility of a measurement tool to assess  systematic review s ( AMSTAR ) . STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING We r and omly selected 30 systematic review s from a data base . Each was assessed by two review ers using : ( 1 ) the enhanced quality assessment question naire ( Overview of Quality Assessment Question naire [ OQAQ ] ) ; ( 2 ) Sacks ' instrument ; and ( 3 ) our newly developed measurement tool ( AMSTAR ) . We report on reliability ( interobserver kappas of the 11 AMSTAR items ) , intraclass correlation coefficients ( ICCs ) of the sum scores , construct validity ( ICCs of the sum scores of AMSTAR compared with those of other instruments ) , and completion times . RESULTS The interrater agreement of the individual items of AMSTAR was substantial with a mean kappa of 0.70 ( 95 % confidence interval [ CI ] : 0.57 , 0.83 ) ( range : 0.38 - 1.0 ) . Kappas recorded for the other instruments were 0.63 ( 95 % CI : 0.38 , 0.78 ) for enhanced OQAQ and 0.40 ( 95 % CI : 0.29 , 0.50 ) for the Sacks ' instrument . The ICC of the total score for AMSTAR was 0.84 ( 95 % CI : 0.65 , 0.92 ) compared with 0.91 ( 95 % CI : 0.82 , 0.96 ) for OQAQ and 0.86 ( 95 % CI : 0.71 , 0.94 ) for the Sacks ' instrument . AMSTAR proved easy to apply , each review taking about 15 minutes to complete . CONCLUSIONS AMSTAR has good agreement , reliability , construct validity , and feasibility . These findings need confirmation by a broader range of assessors and a more 
    Output:
    