Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/2440/88334
Citations
Scopus Web of Science® Altmetric
?
?
Type: Journal article
Title: Are patient characteristics associated with the accuracy of hysterosalpingography in diagnosing tubal pathology? An individual patient data meta-analysis
Author: Broeze, K.
Opmeer, B.
Van Geloven, N.
Coppus, S.
Collins, J.
Den Hartog, J.
van der Linden, P.
Marianowski, P.
Ng, E.
van der Steeg, J.
Steures, P.
Strandell, A.
van der Veen, F.
Mol, B.
Citation: Human Reproduction Update, 2011; 17(3):293-300
Publisher: Oxford University Press
Issue Date: 2011
ISSN: 1355-4786
1460-2369
Statement of
Responsibility: 
K.A. Broeze, B.C. Opmeer, N. Van Geloven, S.F.P.J. Coppus, J.A. Collins, J.E. Den Hartog, P.J.Q. Van der Linden, P. Marianowski, E.H.Y. Ng, J.W. Van der Steeg, P. Steures, A. Strandell, F. Van der Veen and B.W.J. Mol
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Conventional meta-analysis has estimated the sensitivity and specificity of hysterosalpingography (HSG) to be 65% and 83%. The impact of patient characteristics on the accuracy of HSG is unknown. The aim of this study was to assess by individual patient data meta-analysis whether the accuracy of HSG is associated with different patient characteristics. METHODS: We approached authors of primary studies reporting on the accuracy of HSG using findings at laparoscopy as the reference. We assessed whether patient characteristics such as female age, duration of subfertility and a clinical history without risk factors for tubal pathology were associated with the accuracy of HSG, using a random intercept logistic regression model. RESULTS: We acquired data of seven primary studies containing data of 4521 women. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of HSG were 53% and 87% for any tubal pathology and 46% and 95% for bilateral tubal pathology. In women without risk factors, the sensitivity of HSG was 38% for any tubal pathology, compared with 61% in women with risk factors (P = 0.005). For bilateral tubal pathology, these rates were 13% versus 47% (P = 0.01). For bilateral tubal pathology, the sensitivity of HSG decreased with age [factor 0.93 per year (P = 0.05)]. The specificity of HSG was very stable across all subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of HSG in detecting tubal pathology was similar in all subgroups, except for women without risk factors in whom sensitivity was lower, possibly due to false-positive results at laparoscopy. HSG is a useful tubal patency screening test for all infertile couples.
Keywords: Systematic review; individual patient data meta-analysis; tubal pathology; hysterosalpingography; diagnostic accuracy
Rights: © The Author 2010. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction. All rights reserved
RMID: 0020136690
DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmq056
Appears in Collections:Obstetrics and Gynaecology publications

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.