ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2025
Comparison of pregnancy and adverse events between infertile patients receiving X-ray hysterosalpingography and those receiving hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography: a prospective, multicenter, cohort study.
Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comment on: "Comparison of the Application Value of 4-Dimensional Hysterosalpingo-Contrast Sonography and X-Ray Hysterosalpingography in Intrauterine Insemination".Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine · 2026Article
- Comparison of the Application Value of 4-Dimensional Hysterosalpingo-Contrast Sonography and X-Ray Hysterosalpingography in Intrauterine Insemination.Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesX-ray hysterosalpingography (HSG) and hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography (HyCoSy) are both commonly utilized for fallopian tube examination and can improve pregnancy. This study compared the effects of X-ray HSG and HyCoSy on pregnancy and adverse events in infertile patients.
methodsThis prospective, multicenter, cohort study enrolled 96 infertile patients who received X-ray HSG (n = 64) or HyCoSy (n = 32). The clinical pregnancy rate, cumulative clinical pregnancy rate, and adverse events were evaluated in the X-ray HSG and HyCoSy cohorts.
resultsThe baseline pregnancy duration was longer in the X-ray HSG cohort than in the HyCoSy cohort [median (interquartile range (IQR)]: 18.0 (12.0-25.0) months vs. 12.0 (12.0-22.0) months, P = 0.039). The clinical pregnancy rate was greater in the X-ray HSG cohort than in the HyCoSy cohort (37.5% vs. 15.6%, P = 0.028). The cumulative clinical pregnancy rate was also greater in the X-ray HSG cohort than in the HyCoSy cohort (P = 0.040). After adjustment by Cox proportional hazard regression models, examination (X-ray HSG vs. HyCoSy) (hazard ratio: 3.441, P = 0.032) was independently associated with increased clinical pregnancy in infertile patients. In terms of adverse events, although the incidence of intraoperative abdominal pain was not different between the X-ray HSG and HyCoSy cohorts (90.6% vs. 100.0%, P = 0.174), the intraoperative pain visual analog scale score was lower in the X-ray HSG cohort than in the HyCoSy cohort (median (IQR): 2.0 (1.0-6.0) vs. 4.0 (2.3-6.0), P = 0.024). No difference was found in other intraoperative or postoperative adverse events between the two cohorts (all P > 0.050).
conclusionsCompared with those receiving HyCoSy, infertile patients receiving X-ray HSG are more likely to become pregnant and have less intraoperative pain.
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.