ArticleBMJ open2024
Tubal flushing with oil-based contrast during hysterosalpingography versus tubal flushing by hysterosalpingo-foam sonography in infertile women undergoing fertility work-up: study protocol of a randomised controlled trial (FOil study).
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05882188 (Is, in Infertile Women Undergoing a Basic Fertility Work-up, Tubal Flushing With Oil-based Contrast Medium During Hysterosalpingography), which is not on this 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.
Is, in Infertile Women Undergoing a Basic Fertility Work-up, Tubal Flushing With Oil-based Contrast Medium During Hysterosalpingography (HSG) Cost-effective Compared to Tubal Flushing by Hysterosalpingo-foam Sonography (HyFoSy)?
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
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionHysterosalpingography (HSG) and hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HyFoSy) are commonly used tubal patency tests during the fertility work-up. Besides its diagnostic purpose, HSG with oil-based contrast can also be applied for its fertility-enhancing effect, by tubal flushing. HyFoSy is considered as less painful compared with HSG, it lacks exposure to iodinated contrast medium and ionising radiation. The fertility-enhancing effects of HyFoSy are less studied and randomised controlled trials comparing pregnancy rates after HSG and HyFoSy are lacking. This study (FOil study) is initiated to compare the effectiveness of tubal flushing during HSG with oil-based contrast and HyFoSy. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The FOil study is a nationwide, multicentre, open label, randomised controlled trial with a superiority design. Infertile women with an indication for tubal patency testing during their fertility work-up will be randomly assigned to HSG with oil-based contrast medium or HyFoSy. The primary outcome is conception within 6 months after randomisation leading to live birth. To demonstrate or refute an 8% difference in conception leading to live birth in favour of HSG with oil-based contrast, 1102 women will be included in the trial. A cost-effectiveness analysis from a societal perspective will be performed alongside the trial. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial is approved by the Medical Ethics Review Committee of the Amsterdam University Medical Centers (Ref. No. 2022.0884, date: 17 March 2023) and by the boards of the participating hospitals. The findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and participants will be informed through the patient organisation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05882188.
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.