Hysterosalpingosonography for diagnosing tubal occlusion in subfertile women: a systematic review with meta-analysis
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
STUDY QUESTION: Is hysterosalpingosonography (sono-HSG) an accurate test for diagnosing tubal occlusion in subfertile women and how does it perform compared with hysterosalpingography (HSG)? SUMMARY ANSWER: sono-HSG is an accurate test for diagnosing tubal occlusion and performs similarly to HSG. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: sono-HSG and HSG are both short, well-tolerated outpatient procedures. However, sono-HSG has the advantage over HSG of obviating ionizing radiation and the risk of iodine allergy, being associated with a greater sensitivity and specificity in detecting anomalies of the uterine cavity and permitting concomitant visualization of the ovaries and myometrium. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies published in any language before 14 November 2012 were performed. All studies assessing the accuracy of sono-HSG for diagnosing tubal occlusion in a subfertile female population were considered. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Biosis as well as related articles, citations and reference lists. Diagnostic studies were eligible if they compared sono-HSG (±HSG) to laparoscopy with chromotubation in women suffering from subfertility. Two authors independently screened for eligibility, extracted data and assessed the quality of included studies. Risk of bias and applicability concerns were investigated according to the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Study (QUADAS-2). Bivariate random-effects models were used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity with their 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs), to generate summary receiver operating characteristic curves and to evaluate sources of heterogeneity. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Of the 4221 citations identified, 30 studies were eligible. Of the latter, 28 reported results per individual tube and were included in the meta-analysis, representing a total of 1551 women and 2740 tubes. In nine studies, all participants underwent HSG in addition to sono-HSG and laparoscopy, allowing direct comparison of the accuracy of sono-HSG and HSG. Pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity of sono-HSG were 0.92 (95% CI: 0.82-0.96) and 0.95 (95% CI: 0.90-0.97), respectively. In nine studies (582 women, 1055 tubes), sono-HSG and HSG were both compared with laparoscopy, giving pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity of 0.95 (95% CI: 0.78-0.99) and 0.93 (95% CI: 0.89-0.96) for sono-HSG, and 0.94 (95% CI: 0.74-0.99) and 0.92 (95% CI: 0.87-0.95) for HSG, respectively. Doppler sonography was associated with significantly greater sensitivity and specificity of sono-HSG compared with its non-use (0.93 and 0.95 versus 0.86 and 0.89, respectively, P = 0.0497). Sensitivity analysis regarding methodological quality of studies was consistent with these findings. We also found no benefit of the commercially available contrast media over saline solution in regard to the diagnostic accuracy of sono-HSG. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Methodological quality varied greatly between studies. However, sensitivity analysis, taking methodological quality of studies into account, did not modify the results. This systematic review did not allow the distinction between distal and proximal occlusion. This could be interesting to take into account in further studies, as the performance of the test may differ for each localization. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Given our findings and the known benefits of sono-HSG over HSG in the context of subfertility, sono-HSG should replace HSG in the initial workup of subfertile couples. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was funded by personal funds. There are no conflicts of interest to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This review has been registered at PROSPERO: Registration number #CRD42013003829.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,008 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle