Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31334364›Full record

ArticleHuman reproduction open2019

Tubal flushing with oil- or water-based contrast medium: can we identify markers that indicate treatment benefit?

Joukje van Rijswijk, Nienke van Welie, Kim Dreyer, Parvin Tajik, Cornelis B Lambalk, Peter Hompes, Velja Mijatovic, Ben W J Mol, Mohammad H Zafarmand

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Human reproduction open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Joukje van RijswijkDepartment of Reproductive Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-2413-798X
Nienke van WelieDepartment of Reproductive Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Kim DreyerDepartment of Reproductive Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Parvin TajikCentre for Reproductive Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Cornelis B LambalkDepartment of Reproductive Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Peter HompesDepartment of Reproductive Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Velja MijatovicDepartment of Reproductive Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Ben W J MolDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash Medical Centre, Monash Health and Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Mohammad H ZafarmandCentre for Reproductive Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0792-3911
Amsterdam University Medical Centers · NLMonash Medical Centre · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

study questionCan we identify patient characteristics that distinguish which ovulatory infertile women undergoing hysterosalpingography (HSG) benefit more or less from flushing with oil-based contrast medium compared to water-based contrast medium? SUMMARY ANSWER: In ovulatory infertile women, HSG with oil-based contrast medium resulted in higher 6-month ongoing pregnancy and live birth rates as compared to HSG with water-based contrast medium and this treatment effect was independent of characteristics of the couple. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: We recently showed that in infertile women undergoing HSG, flushing with oil-based contrast medium resulted in more ongoing pregnancies than flushing with water-based contrast medium. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: We used data from our randomized clinical trial (RCT) in which 1,119 ovulatory infertile women undergoing HSG during fertility work-up were randomized for use of oil-based ( PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING

methodsWe built logistic regression models to predict ongoing pregnancy and live birth (secondary outcome) as a function of the specific contrast, the specific marker, and marker-by-contrast-interaction. Markers considered were female age, maternal ethnicity, female smoking, body mass index (BMI), duration of infertility, infertility being primary or secondary, sperm quality, and previous appendectomy. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The 6-month ongoing pregnancy rates in the overall population were 39.7% after use of oil-based contrast versus 29.1% after use of water-based contrast medium [relative risk (RR), 1.37; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.16-1.61; LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: The RCT was restricted to infertile ovulatory women younger than 39 years of age without endocrinological disorders and at low risk for tubal pathology. Our results should not be generalized to infertile women who do not share these features. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE

findingsAll infertile, ovulatory women younger than 39 years with a low risk for tubal pathology will benefit from an HSG with oil-based contrast; therefore, this should be offered to them after fertility work-up. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The original H2Oil RCT was an investigator-initiated study that was funded by the two academic institutions (AMC and VUmc) of the Amsterdam UMC. The study displayed in this paper was funded by an unconditional research grant from Guerbet. B.W.M. is supported by an NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548). K.D. reports consultancy for Guerbet, during the conduct of the study, and also reports research grants from Guerbet. C.B.L. reports grants from Guerbet, during the conduct of the study, and grants from Ferring, grants from Merck, and personal fees from Ferring, outside the submitted work. P.H. reports grants from Guerbet, during the conduct of the study, and grants from Ferring and Merck, outside the submitted work. V.M. reports receiving travel and speakers fee as well as research grants from Guerbet. B.W.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck, Merck KGaA, and Guerbet, and research grants from Guerbet and Merck. The other authors have no conflict of interest to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR 3270 www.trialregister.nl. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 1 February 2012. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT: 3 February 2012.

Indexed as

hysterosalpingographyinfertilityoil-based contrasttreatment selection markerswater-based contrast

Identifiers

PMID31334364
PMCPMC6638263
OpenAlexW2963272275

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.