↓ Skip to main content

Tubal flushing for subfertility

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Tubal flushing for subfertility
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003718.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lamiya Mohiyiddeen, Anne Hardiman, Cheryl Fitzgerald, Edward Hughes, Ben Willem J Mol, Neil Johnson, Andrew Watson

Abstract

Establishing the patency of the fallopian tubes is a commonly undertaken diagnostic investigation for women with subfertility. This is usually achieved by flushing contrast medium through the tubes and taking radiographs. However, it has been noted that many women conceive in the first three to six months after the tubal flushing, which has raised the possibility that tubal flushing could also be a treatment for infertility. There has been debate about which contrast medium should be used (water-soluble or oil-soluble media) as this may influence pregnancy rates. To evaluate the effect of flushing fallopian tubes with oil- or water-soluble contrast media on live birth and pregnancy rates in women with subfertility. We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register of trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Biological Abstracts, trial registers and reference lists of identified articles. The most recent search was conducted in June 2014. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing tubal flushing with oil-soluble or water-soluble contrast media, or with no treatment, in women with subfertility. Two authors independently selected the trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. The overall quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE methods. Thirteen trials involving 2914 women were included, of whom 2494 were included in the analysis. Oil-soluble contrast media (OSCM) versus no interventionThe OSCM group had a higher rate of live birth (odds ratio (OR) 3.09, 95% CI 1.39 to 6.91, 1 RCT, 158 women, low quality evidence) and ongoing pregnancy (OR 3.59, 95% CI 2.06 to 6.26, 3 RCTs, 382 women, I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence) than women who had no intervention. Our findings suggest that among subfertile women with a 17% chance of an ongoing pregnancy if they have no intervention, the rate will increase to between 29% and 55% if they have tubal flushing with OSCM. Water-soluble contrast media (WSCM) versus no interventionThere was no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of live birth (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.91, 1 RCT, 334 women, very low quality evidence) or ongoing pregnancy (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.84, 1 RCT, 334 women, very low quality evidence). OSCM versus WSCMTwo RCTs reported live birth: one found a higher live birth rate in the oil-soluble group and the other found no evidence of a difference between the groups. These studies were not pooled due to very high heterogeneity (I(2) = 93%). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of ongoing pregnancy, however there was high heterogeneity (OR 1.44, 95% CI 0.84 to 2.47, 5 RCTs, 1454 women, I(2) = 76%, random-effects model, very low quality evidence). OSCM plus WSCM versus WSCM aloneThere was no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of live birth (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.77, 1 RCT, 393 women, very low quality evidence) or ongoing pregnancy (OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.72, 4 RCTs, 633 women, I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence).There was no evidence of a difference between any of the interventions in rates of adverse events, but such events were poorly reported in most studies. The evidence suggests that tubal flushing with oil-soluble contrast media may increase the chance of pregnancy and live birth compared to no intervention. Findings for other comparisons were inconclusive due to inconsistency and lack of statistical power. There was insufficient evidence on adverse events to reach firm conclusions. Further robust randomised controlled trials are needed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 65 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 14%
Researcher 8 12%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Other 13 20%
Unknown 8 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 55%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 14%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 10 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 27. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 August 2019.
All research outputs
#641,777
of 13,897,020 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,990
of 10,751 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,849
of 228,935 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#57
of 238 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,897,020 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,751 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 228,935 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 238 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.