ArticleReproductive health2022
Live birth rate and neonatal outcomes following interventional embolization of hydrosalpinx.
Article in Reproductive health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHydrosalpinx has a negative effect on the pregnancy outcomes of in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer (IVF-ET), and the pretreatment for hydrosalpinx play an important role in improving the outcomes of IVF-ET. This study aimed to investigate the impacts of interventional embolization of hydrosalpinx on the live birth rate and neonatal outcome after in-vitro fertilization.
methodIn the present retrospective study, 3351 women receiving the first frozen embryo transfer (FET) after freeze-all policy were reviewed. Patients who received interventional embolization of hydrosalpinx (n = 1268) were included in the study group and those with hydrosalpinx-free bilateral fallopian tube obstruction (n = 2083) in the control group. The primary outcome was live birth (LB) rate; the secondary endpoints included rates of implantation, clinical pregnancy (CP), multiple pregnancy, and pregnancy loss.
resultsThe LB rate was similar between embolization group (39.91%) and control group (43.21%) (P > 0.05). The rate of implantation (35.81% vs. 32.24%), CP (50.84% vs. 47%) and multiple pregnancy rate (28.71% vs. 24.16%) in the control group were significantly higher than in the embolization group (P < 0.05). The miscarriage rate (39.91%, vs 43.21%, P > 0.05), ectopic gestation rate (2.35% vs 2.83%, P > 0.05), and ongoing pregnancy rate (41.56% vs 44.89%, P > 0.05) were comparable between two groups. After adjustment for confounding factors, interventional embolization of hydrosalpinx was found to have no influence on the LB rate. The thicker endometrium, more embryos transferred, and transfer of blastocyst stage embryos significantly increased the LB rate and CP rate.
conclusionThe interventional embolization of hydrosalpinx can achieve the LB rate similar to that of hydrosalpinx-free obstruction patients with less risk, less pain and reduced medical cost. Thus, embolization of hydrosalpinx is one of the preferable clinical treatments for patients with hydrosalpinx.
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.