Given a passage, construct a question on the basis of the information present in the passage. Construct the question in such a way that (i) it is unambiguous, (ii) it is answerable from the passage, (iii) its answer is unique (iv) it answer uses text phrases from the passage. Avoid creating questions that (i) can't be answered correctly without actually understanding the passage and (ii) uses the same words or phrases given in the passage.

Input: Consider Input: Expression of CINCs was regulated differentially in lipopolysaccharide-stimulated rat macrophages. We examined whether the expression of CINCs in lipopolysaccharide-stimulated rat macrophages is similarly inhibited by anti-inflammatory drugs.', 'Rat peritoneal macrophages were stimulated by lipopolysaccharide in the presence of anti-inflammatory steroids (dexamethasone, prednisolone and hydrocortisone) or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (indomethacin and piroxicam). The production and mRNA expression of three types of CINCs were measured using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and northern hybridization.', 'Anti-inflammatory steroids; dexamethasone, prednisolone and hydrocortisone, dose-dependently inhibited the production of CINC-1, -2 and -3, whose inhibitory patterns were similar to each other. Furthermore mRNA expression of each CINC was inhibited by dexamethasone in a dose-dependent manner. In contrast, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, indomethacin and piroxicam were without effect. Expression of each CINC was regulated differently; the production of CINC-1 reached a maximum at 12 h and then slightly decreased after lipopolysaccharide stimulation, whereas that of CINC-2 and CINC-3 increased up to 24 h. Dexamethasone inhibited the CINCs production and mRNA expression at 9 h after lipopolysaccharide stimulation.

Output: Is the expression of three types of CINCs by lipopolysaccharide-stimulated rat macrophages inhibited similarly by anti-inflammatory steroids?


Input: Consider Input: Although moderate (conscious) sedation is intended during elective gastrointestinal endoscopy, unintended levels of deep sedation occur. The aims of this study were to prospectively evaluate the incidence and risk factors of deep sedation during elective endoscopy with meperidine and midazolam intended to maintain a level of moderate sedation.', "Eighty American Society of Anesthesiology class 1-2, outpatients presenting for elective esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), colonoscopy, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), and endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) were offered enrollment. Intravenous meperidine and midazolam were administered according to a standardized protocol. Hemodynamic parameters and levels of sedation were assessed and recorded by a single observer at 3-min intervals. The Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (MOAA/S) scale (ranging 1-5) is a subjective sedation assessment scale used to assess sedation levels. Occurrence of deep sedation, defined by MOAA/S 1-2, was recorded. Univariable and multivariable analyses were used to assess predictors of deep sedation.", 'Deep sedation occurred in 54/80 (68%) patients for a total of 204/785 (26%) of total sedation assessments. The percentage of deep sedation episodes of all sedation-level observations by procedure was 26% for EGD, 11% for colonoscopy, 35% for ERCP, and 29% for EUS. Deep sedation occurred at least once in 60% of EGD, 45% of colonoscopy, 85% of ERCP, and 80% of EUS. Multivariable analysis showed that only ERCP and EUS were independent risk factors of deep sedation.

Output: Does deep sedation occur frequently during elective endoscopy with meperidine and midazolam?


Input: Consider Input: Data sources The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline and Embase.", 'Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of orthodontic treatment to correct prominent lower front teeth were included.', 'Study screening, risk of bias assessment and data extraction were carried out independently by two reviewers. The mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were calculated for continuous data. Meta-analysis was undertaken when studies of similar comparisons reported comparable outcome measures. A fixed-effect model was used. The l(2) statistic was used as a measure of statistical heterogeneity.', 'Seven RCTs (339 patients) were included in this review. One study was assessed as at low risk of bias, three at high risk of bias and three at unclear risk. Four studies reported on the use of a facemask, two on the chin cup, one on the tandem traction bow appliance and one on mandibular headgear.One study reported on both the chin cup and mandibular headgear appliances. One study (n = 73, low quality evidence), comparing a facemask to no treatment, reported a mean difference (MD) in overjet of 4.10 mm (95% confidence interval (CI) 3.04 to 5.16; P value < 0.0001) favouring the facemask treatment.Three studies (n = 155, low quality evidence) reported ANB differences immediately after treatment with a facemask when compared to an untreated control. The pooled data showed a statistically significant MD in ANB in favour of the facemask of 3.93° (95% CI 3.46 to 4.39; P value < 0.0001). There was significant heterogeneity between these studies (I2 = 82%). This is likely to have been caused by the different populations studied and the different ages at the time of treatment.One study (n = 73, low quality evidence) reported outcomes of the use of the facemask compared to an untreated control at three years follow-up. This study showed that improvements in overjet and ANB were still present three years post-treatment. In this study, adverse effects were reported, but due to the low prevalence of temporomandibular (TMJ) signs and symptoms no analysis was undertaken.Two studies (n = 90, low quality evidence) compared the chin cup with an untreated control. Both studies found a statistically significant improvement in ANB, and one study also found an improvement in the Wits appraisal. Data from these two studies were not suitable for pooling.A single study of the tandem traction bow appliance compared to untreated control (n = 30, very low quality evidence) showed a statistically significant difference in both overjet and ANB favouring the intervention group. The remaining two studies did not report the primary outcome of this review.


Output: Does weak evidence support the short-term benefits of orthopaedic treatment for Class III malocclusion in children?