Fang Fang1, Yu Bai2, Yu Zhang3, Andrew Faramand4. 1. West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Sichuan, People's Republic of China. Electronic address: fangfang1057@outlook.com. 2. West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Sichuan, People's Republic of China. 3. Affiliated Hospital of Chengdu University, Sichuan, People's Republic of China. 4. University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of the using oil-soluble contrast material (OSCM) vs. water-soluble contrast material (WSCM) for hysterosalpingography on pregnancy rates in infertile women. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. SETTING: Not applicable. PATIENT(S): Infertile women. INTERVENTION(S): We included randomized controlled trials comparing pregnancy outcomes in women with infertility undergoing hysterosalpingography using OSCM and WSCM. Paired reviewers independently screened citations, assessed risk of bias of included studies, and extracted data. A random-effects model was used to report all outcomes. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, Evaluation（GRADE） system was used to quantify absolute effects and quality of evidence. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy per randomized women. RESULT(S): Six trials with a total of 2,562 patients were selected. Our meta-analysis showed OSCM was associated with significantly higher rates of ongoing pregnancy compared with WSCM (odds ratio [OR] 1.47, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.12-1.93; I2 = 44%, moderate-quality evidence). Three trials reported live birth, but they were not pooled owing to extreme statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 86%). There was no difference in incidence of miscarriage (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.56-1.24) or ectopic pregnancy (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.18-2.36) between OSCM and WSCM groups. Three trials were rated as low risk of bias, whereas three were considered unclear. CONCLUSION(S): Women who previously underwent hysterosalpingography using oil contrast had higher rates of ongoing pregnancy compared with women who underwent this procedure using water contrast. There is not enough evidence to either support or oppose the difference between groups concerning miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of the using oil-soluble contrast material (OSCM) vs. water-soluble contrast material (WSCM) for hysterosalpingography on pregnancy rates in infertile women. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. SETTING: Not applicable. PATIENT(S): Infertile women. INTERVENTION(S): We included randomized controlled trials comparing pregnancy outcomes in women with infertility undergoing hysterosalpingography using OSCM and WSCM. Paired reviewers independently screened citations, assessed risk of bias of included studies, and extracted data. A random-effects model was used to report all outcomes. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, Evaluation（GRADE） system was used to quantify absolute effects and quality of evidence. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy per randomized women. RESULT(S): Six trials with a total of 2,562 patients were selected. Our meta-analysis showed OSCM was associated with significantly higher rates of ongoing pregnancy compared with WSCM (odds ratio [OR] 1.47, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.12-1.93; I2 = 44%, moderate-quality evidence). Three trials reported live birth, but they were not pooled owing to extreme statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 86%). There was no difference in incidence of miscarriage (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.56-1.24) or ectopic pregnancy (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.18-2.36) between OSCM and WSCM groups. Three trials were rated as low risk of bias, whereas three were considered unclear. CONCLUSION(S): Women who previously underwent hysterosalpingography using oil contrast had higher rates of ongoing pregnancy compared with women who underwent this procedure using water contrast. There is not enough evidence to either support or oppose the difference between groups concerning miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy.
Authors: N van Welie; I Roest; M Portela; J van Rijswijk; C Koks; C B Lambalk; K Dreyer; B W J Mol; M J J Finken; V Mijatovic Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2020-05-01 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: Khawaja B Waheed; Muneera A Albassam; Alaa-Ali G AlShamrani; Shayma A Aloumi; Muhammad S Amin; Lubna Rashid; Sarah M AlGodayan; Siti-Fatimah B Ahmad Journal: Saudi Med J Date: 2019-10 Impact factor: 1.484
Authors: N van Welie; K Dreyer; J van Rijswijk; H R Verhoeve; M Goddijn; A W Nap; J M J Smeenk; M A F Traas; H G M Rijnsaardt-Lukassen; A J C M van Dongen; P Bourdrez; J P de Bruin; A V Sluijmer; A P Gijsen; P M van de Ven; C B Lambalk; V Mijatovic; B W J Mol Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2019-12-01 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: Inez Roest; Nienke van Welie; Velja Mijatovic; Kim Dreyer; Marlies Bongers; Carolien Koks; Ben Willem Mol Journal: Hum Reprod Open Date: 2020-01-15