ArticleCureus2026
Hysteroscopy in the Evaluation of Intrauterine Pathologies With Primary and Secondary Infertility: A Prospective Study From North India.
Article in Cureus, 2026. 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
Introduction Infertility remains a significant obstacle in reproductive health, affecting countless couples worldwide. Hysteroscopy is essential in the evaluation of infertile females. Therefore, this study has been conducted to evaluate the role of hysteroscopy in the evaluation of intrauterine pathologies in Indian women with primary and secondary infertility. Methods This was a prospective observational study conducted at a tertiary care hospital for 18 months. Ninety infertile females aged 18-40 years with normal husband semen parameters underwent infertility workups and were divided into primary and secondary infertility. All patients underwent both hysterosalpingography (HSG) and hysteroscopy. The findings were recorded, and the suspicious lesions were sent for histopathological examination. Results There was a statistically significant difference in mean age, mean duration of infertility, and BMI between primary and secondary infertile females. HSG showed abnormalities in 12 (19.7%) patients in primary and 8 (27.6%) patients in secondary infertility. However, 21 (34.4%) females in the primary and 10 (34.5%) in the secondary infertility group had pathologies on hysteroscopy. HSG was 54.8% sensitive and 94.9% specific with a positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of 85% and 80%, respectively. The accuracy of HSG was 81.1%. The endometrial anomalies were the most common finding, 21 (23.2%), on hysteroscopy, and endometritis was the most common, 6 (6.6%), on histopathology (HPE). With respect to HPE, hysteroscopy had 100% sensitivity, 66.7% specificity, with 81.8% PPV, NPV as 100%, and an accuracy of 88.2% in this study. Conclusion Hysteroscopy is a useful procedure in diagnosing uterine pathologies that often remain undetected with USG and HSG. However, hysteroscopy alone cannot rule out tubal blockage. Hence, in female infertility, a complementary use of HSG and hysteroscopy is recommended.
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.