ArticleGeburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde2024
The Role of Hysteroscopy in the Assessment of Fallopian Tubal Patency: A Comprehensive Review and Meta-analysis.
Article in Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde, 2024. 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.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hysteroscopy has been recognized as a reliable method for the evaluation of female infertility for several years. The outpatient setting is particularly convenient, as patients do not require general anesthesia and do not have to stay overnight. In recent years, more and more articles have dealt with the role of diagnostic hysteroscopy in tubal evaluation. Twenty-four articles were included in this comprehensive review and 14 of them were also included in a meta-analysis. This review provides an overview of the different techniques of hysteroscopic tubal evaluation, with a focus on perioperative changes in cul-de-sac volume, the air bubble technique ("Parryscope" technique), the Flow technique and selective hysteroscopic pertubation with methylene blue dye (SHPMBD). In pooled analyses, SHPMBD achieved the highest sensitivity for tubal patency (91.7%, 95% confidence interval, CI: 88.8-94.0), whereas the air bubble technique revealed the highest specificity of all methods (98.4, 95% CI: 95.3-99.6). Furthermore, in a meta-analysis of all methods on the assessment of single tubes, an overall sensitivity of 87.1% and an overall specificity of 79.8% (95% CI: 76.4-82.9) could be shown. In conclusion, the techniques of hysteroscopic tubal evaluation are well-tolerated, clinically relevant, and reliable.
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.