ArticleBMJ open2020
Effects of oil-soluble versus water-soluble contrast media at hysterosalpingography on pregnancy outcomes in women with a low risk of tubal disease: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.
Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Iodinated contrast media (ICM)-induced thyroid dysfunction: a review of potential mechanisms and clinical management.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2025Review
- Review
- Comparison of fertility outcomes between oil‑based and water‑based contrast media during hysterosalpingography: A meta‑analysis.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2023Article
- Mesenchymal Stem Cells in Preclinical Infertility Cytotherapy: A Retrospective Review.Stem cells international · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn recent years, due to various factors, the rate of infertility in China has increased and now affects over 10% of women of reproductive age. Hysterosalpingography (HSG) is a common diagnostic procedure during fertility examinations. However, there is no consensus on the choice of contrast agents and their effects. As the largest multicentre, randomised controlled trial (H2Oil trial from the Netherlands) has shown that oil-soluble contrast at HSG can enhance fertility compared with water-soluble contrast, we propose this study to examine whether the use of oil-soluble contrast media results in increased rates of pregnancy in Chinese women undergoing HSG. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study is a single-centre, randomised, controlled, parallel-group, superiority trial. Patients with low risk of tubal disease will be randomised to undergo HSG using iodinated oil injection (OSCM group, oil-soluble contrast media) or ioversol injection (WSCM group, water-soluble contrast media). To evaluate the potential superiority of the OSCM group, with 1:1 allocation ratio, 90% statistical power and a two-sided significance level of 5%, we have calculated a sample of 520 women per group to be enrolled, for a total of 1040 including 10% loss to follow-up or protocol variation. The primary outcome is the rate of ongoing pregnancy during 6 months after randomisation. The secondary outcomes will consist of thyroid function of patients and newborns, pain scores during HSG, rate of live birth, clinical pregnancies, miscarriages, ectopic pregnancy, time to ongoing pregnancy, time to live birth, cost calculations of the OSCM group/WSCM group, and assisted reproductive technology treatments between the two groups. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This protocol received authorisation from the Medical Research Ethics Committee of International Peace Maternity and Child Health Hospital on 18 January 2020 (approval no GKLW2020-02). The findings will be reported in peer-reviewed publications and presentations at international scientific meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ChiCTR2000031612.
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.