ReviewInternational journal of women's health2017
Hysterosalpingo-foam sonography: patient selection and perspectives.
Review in International journal of women's health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of HyFoSy, HyCoSy and X-Ray Hysterosalpingography in the Assessment of Tubal Patency in Women with Infertility: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Pooled it
- Diagnostic performance of HyFoSy versus HSG for tubal patency: accuracy and agreement analysis.Polish journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Comparison of pregnancy and adverse events between infertile patients receiving X-ray hysterosalpingography and those receiving hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography: a prospective, multicenter, cohort study.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2025Article
- Sequential-contingent strategy for fallopian tube evaluation using hysterosalpingo foam sonography: a cost analysis.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2024Article
- Technical Tips and Tricks after 10 Years of HyFoSy for Tubal Patency Testing.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Undescended ovary without abnormal development of uterus and urinary system: a report of four cases.Journal of ovarian research · 2021Article
- Diagnostic Accuracy Study Comparing Hysterosalpingo-Foam Sonography and Hysterosalpingography for Fallopian Tube Patency Assessment.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Spontaneous conception outcome in infertile women after four-dimensional hysterosalpingo-contrast-sonography.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2020Article
- Clinical Aspects of HyFoSy as Tubal Patency Test in Subfertility Workup.BioMed research international · 2019Review
- Assessment of the Influence on Spontaneous Pregnancy of Hysterosalpingo-Contrast Sonography.BioMed research international · 2018Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We present an overview of the common types of tubal patency tests, with a focus on hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HyFoSy). Current evidence suggests that HyFoSy is an accurate alternative to X-ray hysterosalpingography (HSG) for outpatient tubal evaluation in women who are at low risk for tubal disease. It may be superior to saline hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography (HyCoSy) in excluding tubal occlusion. A hyperechogenic medium may enhance contrast visualization and enable clearer delineation of tubal anatomy. This may enhance confidence in the diagnosis of tubal patency, reduce false occlusion results, and improve the diagnostic yield of the test. It would be reasonable to deduce that HyFoSy would have similar performance characteristics as HyCoSy with other positive contrast agents. The available evidence supports the accuracy of HyFoSy compared to other forms of tubal investigation. We suggest a decision-making pathway based on the most current professional recommendations and available evidence. However, in this article, we do not provide a definitive exposition of the methods used for investigating tubal patency. Rather, we explore the contexts in which the various investigations are most and least suitable, and identify their strengths and limitations. Finally, we also discuss challenges encountered when performing tubal contrast sonography in clinical practice, including the problem of false occlusion results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.