Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35152893›Full record

ArticleBMC women's health2022

Is hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HyFoSy) more tolerable in terms of pain and anxiety than hysterosalpingography (HSG)? A prospective real-world setting multicentre study.

Lucía Serrano González, Tirso Pérez-Medina, Beatriz Bueno Olalla, Ana Royuela, María de Los Reyes De La Cuesta, David Saéz de la Mata, Esther Domínguez-Franjo, Laura Calles-Sastre, Virginia Engels

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC women's health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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 3 institutions in 1 country.

Lucía Serrano GonzálezDepartment of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Puerta de Hierro Majadahonda University Hospital, Joaquín Rodrigo St, 1, 28222, Majadahonda, Madrid, Spain. luciaserranogon@gmail.com.
Tirso Pérez-MedinaDepartment of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Puerta de Hierro Majadahonda University Hospital, Joaquín Rodrigo St, 1, 28222, Majadahonda, Madrid, Spain.
Beatriz Bueno OlallaDepartment of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Infanta Sofía University Hospital, Paseo de Europa, 34, 28703, San Sebastián de los Reyes, Madrid, Spain.
Ana RoyuelaBiostatistics Unit, Biomedical Research Institute Puerta de Hierro-Segovia de Arana (CIBERESP) ES, Joaquín Rodrigo St, 1, 28222, Majadahonda, Madrid, Spain.
María de Los Reyes De La CuestaDepartment of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Puerta de Hierro Majadahonda University Hospital, Joaquín Rodrigo St, 1, 28222, Majadahonda, Madrid, Spain.
David Saéz de la MataDepartment of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Infanta Sofía University Hospital, Paseo de Europa, 34, 28703, San Sebastián de los Reyes, Madrid, Spain.
Esther Domínguez-FranjoDepartment of Radio Diagnosis, Infanta Sofía University Hospital, Paseo de Europa, 34, 28703, San Sebastián de los Reyes, Madrid, Spain.
Laura Calles-SastreDepartment of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Puerta de Hierro Majadahonda University Hospital, Joaquín Rodrigo St, 1, 28222, Majadahonda, Madrid, Spain.
Virginia EngelsDepartment of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Puerta de Hierro Majadahonda University Hospital, Joaquín Rodrigo St, 1, 28222, Majadahonda, Madrid, Spain.
Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro Majadahonda · ESHospital Universitario Infanta Sofía · ESCentro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Epidemiología y Salud Pública · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn 60% of sterile couples a female factor is present, with these being tubal factors in 30-50% of cases. A tubal patency test is also required in women without a male partner undergoing fertility treatment. Thus, an accurate, safe and tolerable technique should be available. The aim of this study is to determine and to compare hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HyFoSy) and hysterosalpingography (HSG) tolerability in terms of pain and anxiety.

methodsThis is a prospective real-world setting multicentre study conducted in two tertiary hospitals in Madrid. 210 infertile women/women without a male partner looking to get pregnant were recruited; 111 for the HyFoSy group and 99 for the HSG group. Tolerability was measured in terms of anxiety by the State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) and pain by the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS).

resultsMedian VAS score in HyFoSy group was 2 (P25; P75: 1; 3) versus 5 (4; 8) in HSG group, p < 0.001. The median State-STAI score in the HSG group was 18 points (10; 26) versus 10 (7; 16) in the HyFoSy group (p < 0.001); the median Trait-STAI score in the HSG group was 15 (11; 21) versus 13 (9; 17) in the HyFoSy group (p = 0.044).

conclusionsHyFoSy shows higher tolerability to both: pain and anxiety. It is related to less pain and less post-test anxiety than HSG.

Indexed as

HysterosalpingographyInfertility, FemaleAnxietyFallopian TubesFemaleHumansMalePainPregnancyProspective StudiesAnxietyHysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HyFoSy)Hysterosalpingography (HSG)PainTolerability

Identifiers

PMID35152893
PMCPMC9909448
OpenAlexW4212924681

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.