Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38573340›Full record

SynthesisEuropean radiology2024

Contrast media for hysterosalpingography: systematic search and review providing new guidelines by the Contrast Media Safety Committee of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology.

Remy W F Geenen, Aart J van der Molen, Ilona A Dekkers, Marie-France Bellin, Michele Bertolotto, Jean-Michel Correas, Gertraud Heinz-Peer, Andreas H Mahnken, Carlo C Quattrocchi, Alexander Radbruch and 7 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European radiology, 2024. 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
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. [Sub-committee of Anesthesiology of Guangzhou Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine Society].Nan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University · 2025
    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

17 authors at 14 institutions in 9 countries.

Remy W F GeenenDepartment of Radiology, Northwest Clinics, Alkmaar, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4232-679X
Aart J van der MolenDepartment of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2376-9424
Ilona A DekkersDepartment of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3329-0660
Marie-France BellinAP-HP, University Hospital Bicêtre, Department of Radiology, BioMaps, University Paris Saclay, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3015-4022
Michele BertolottoDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital Trieste, Trieste, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5583-350X
Jean-Michel CorreasAP-HP, Groupe Hospitalier Necker, DMU Imagina, Service de Radiologie, Université de Paris, Paris, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8596-4145
Gertraud Heinz-PeerDepartment of Radiology, Landesklinikum St Pölten, St Pölten, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6037-7534
Andreas H MahnkenDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Marburg University Hospital, Marburg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8077-9306
Carlo C QuattrocchiCentre for Medical Sciences - CISMed, University of Trento, Trento, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6823-7707
Alexander RadbruchClinic for Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Clinic Bonn, and German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases, DZNE, Bonn, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6238-6525
Peter ReimerDepartment of Radiology, Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Klinikum Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7059-4508
Giles RoditiDepartment of Radiology, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Glasgow, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9393-7764
Carmen SebastiàDepartment of Radiology, Hospital Clinic de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3153-4350
Fulvio StaculDepartment of Radiology, Ospedale Maggiore, Trieste, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4643-742X
Laura RomaniniDepartment of Radiology, ASST Cremona, Cremona, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6298-7854
Olivier ClémentAP-HP, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, DMU Imagina, Service de Radiologie, Université de Paris, Paris, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6890-671X
Torkel B BrismarUnit of Radiology, CLINTEC, Karolinska Institutet, Alfred Nobels alle 8, 141 52, Huddinge, Sweden. torkel.brismar@ki.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3409-1938
Leiden University Medical Center · NLUniversité Paris Cité · FRAssistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris · FRGerman Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases · DEGlasgow Royal Infirmary · GBHospital Clínic de Barcelona · ESIstituti Ospitalieri di Cremona · ITKarolinska University Hospital · SENorthwest Hospital · USOspedale Maggiore · ITStädtisches Klinikum Karlsruhe · DEUniversitätsklinikum St. Pölten · ATUniversity of Trento · ITUniversity of Trieste · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesHysterosalpingography (HSG) is widely used for evaluating the fallopian tubes; however, controversies regarding the use of water- or oil-based iodine-based contrast media (CM) remain. The aim of this work was (1) to discuss reported pregnancy rates related to the CM type used, (2) to validate the used CM in published literature, (3) to discuss possible complications and side effects of CM in HSG, and (4) to develop guidelines on the use of oil-based CM in HSG.

methodsA systematic literature search was conducted for original RCT studies or review/meta-analyses on using water-based and oil-based CM in HSG with fertility outcomes and complications. Nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 10 reviews/meta-analyses were analyzed. Grading of the literature was performed based on the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) 2011 classification.

resultsAn approximately 10% higher pregnancy rate is reported for oil-based CM. Side effects are rare, but oil-based CM have potentially more side effects on the maternal thyroid function and the peritoneum.

conclusions1. HSG with oil-based CM gives approximately 10% higher pregnancy rates. 2. External validity is limited, as in five of nine RCTs, the CM used is no longer on the market. 3. Oil-based CM have potentially more side effects on the maternal thyroid function and on the peritoneum. 4. Guideline: Maternal thyroid function should be tested before HSG with oil-based CM and monitored for 6 months after. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Oil-based CM is associated with an approximately 10% higher chance of pregnancy compared to water-based CM after HSG. Although side effects are rare, higher iodine concentration and slower clearance of oil-based CM may induce maternal thyroid function disturbance and peritoneal inflammation and granuloma formation. KEY POINTS: • It is unknown which type of contrast medium, oil-based or water-based, is the optimal for HSG. • Oil-based contrast media give a 10% higher chance of pregnancy after HSG, compared to water-based contrast media. • From the safety perspective, oil-based CM can cause thyroid dysfunction and an intra-abdominal inflammatory response in the patient.

Indexed as

Contrast MediaHysterosalpingographyEuropeFemaleHumansIodinePractice Guidelines as TopicPregnancyPregnancy RateContrast MediaIodineAdverse effectsContrast mediaEthiodized oilHysterosalpingographyPractice guideline

Identifiers

PMID38573340
PMCPMC11399192
OpenAlexW4393944028

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.