Literature DB >> 8137969

A meta-analysis of the therapeutic role of oil soluble contrast media at hysterosalpingography: a surprising result?

A Watson1, P Vandekerckhove, R Lilford, A Vail, I Brosens, E Hughes.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the therapeutic effect of oil-soluble contrast media compared with water-soluble contrast media after hysterosalpingography (HSG) in infertile couples.
DESIGN: Meta-analysis of four randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and six nonrandomized controlled studies evaluating pregnancy rates after the use of oil- or water-soluble contrast media during HSG.
SETTING: Institute of Epidemiology and Health Services Research, Leeds, United Kingdom. PATIENTS: Four identified RCTs studied 800 patients and six nonrandomized studies comprised an additional 1,806 patients, all experiencing primary or secondary infertility. INTERVENTION: Hysterosalpingography as part of infertility investigation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Pregnancy rates after HSG.
RESULTS: Pregnancy rates were significantly higher in the oil-soluble contrast media group compared with the water-soluble contrast media group in the RCTs. Inclusion of the six nonrandomized studies did not alter this conclusion. This apparent benefit was greatest for patients with unexplained infertility.
CONCLUSIONS: Oil-soluble contrast media have a therapeutic effect compared with water-soluble media and this effect is greatest for patients who have been diagnosed as having unexplained infertility. New techniques for the evaluation of tubal patency support the hypothesis that tubal "plugs" may be involved in proximal tubal blockage.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1994        PMID: 8137969     DOI: 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)56578-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Fertil Steril        ISSN: 0015-0282            Impact factor:   7.329


  7 in total

1.  High incidence of tubal dysfunction is determined by laparoscopy in cases with positive Chlamydia trachomatis antibody despite negative finding in prior hysterosalpingography.

Authors:  Hisahiko Hiroi; Toshihiro Fujiwara; Manabu Nakazawa; Yutaka Osuga; Mikio Momoeda; Koji Kugu; Tetsu Yano; Osamu Tsutsumi; Yuji Taketani
Journal:  Reprod Med Biol       Date:  2007-02-16

2.  The unpredictability paradox: review of empirical comparisons of randomised and non-randomised clinical trials.

Authors:  R Kunz; A D Oxman
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1998-10-31

Review 3.  Healthcare outcomes assessed with observational study designs compared with those assessed in randomized trials.

Authors:  Andrew Anglemyer; Hacsi T Horvath; Lisa Bero
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2014-04-29

Review 4.  Tubal flushing for subfertility.

Authors:  Lamiya Mohiyiddeen; Anne Hardiman; Cheryl Fitzgerald; Edward Hughes; Ben Willem J Mol; Neil Johnson; Andrew Watson
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2015-05-01

Review 5.  Randomisation to protect against selection bias in healthcare trials.

Authors:  Jan Odgaard-Jensen; Gunn E Vist; Antje Timmer; Regina Kunz; Elie A Akl; Holger Schünemann; Matthias Briel; Alain J Nordmann; Silvia Pregno; Andrew D Oxman
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2011-04-13

Review 6.  Clinical Aspects of HyFoSy as Tubal Patency Test in Subfertility Workup.

Authors:  Niek Exalto; Mark Hans Emanuel
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2019-07-08       Impact factor: 3.411

7.  Treatment effect of oil-based contrast is related to experienced pain at HSG: a post-hoc analysis of the randomised H2Oil study.

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

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.