↓ Skip to main content

Tubal flushing for subfertility.

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2007
Altmetric Badge

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 Mendeley
connotea
1 Connotea
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, July 2007
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003718.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Luttjeboer F, Harada T, Hughes E, Johnson N, Lilford R, Mol BW, Luttjeboer, F, Harada, T, Hughes, E, Johnson, N, Lilford, R, Mol, B W J, Johnson, Neil, Vanderkerchove, Patrick, Lilford, Richard, Harada, Tasuku, Hughes, Edward, Luttjeboer, Femke, Mol, Ben Willem J, Torossian, Luciana G

Abstract

A possible therapeutic effect of diagnostic tubal patency testing has been debated in the literature for half a century. Further debate surrounds whether oil-soluble or water-soluble contrast media might have the bigger fertility-enhancing effect. To evaluate the effect of flushing a woman's fallopian tubes with oil- or water-soluble contrast media on subsequent fertility outcomes in couples with infertility. We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group's specialised register of trials (searched 31 January 2007), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Biological Abstract and reference lists of articles. All randomised trials comparing tubal flushing with oil-soluble contrast media or tubal flushing with water-soluble media or with no treatment in women with subfertility. Four authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. We collected adverse effects information from the trials. Twelve trials involving 2079 participants were included. Tubal flushing with oil-soluble media versus no intervention was associated with a significant increase in the odds of live birth (Peto OR 2.98, 95% CI 1.40 to 6.37) and of pregnancy (Peto OR 3.30, 95% CI 2.00 to 5.43). For the comparison of tubal flushing with oil-soluble media versus tubal flushing with water-soluble media, the increase in the odds of live birth for tubal flushing with oil-soluble versus water-soluble media (Peto OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.11) was based on two trials where statistical heterogeneity was present and the higher quality trial showed no significant difference; there was no evidence of a significant difference in the odds of pregnancy (Peto OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.54). The addition of oil-soluble media to flushing with water-soluble media showed no evidence of a significant difference in the odds of pregnancy (Peto OR 1.28, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.79) or live birth (Peto OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.77). There were no serious adverse event reported. There is evidence of effectiveness of tubal flushing with oil-soluble contrast media in increasing the odds of pregnancy and live birth versus no intervention. Future robust randomised trials, comparing oil-soluble versus water-soluble media, water-soluble media versus no intervention and tubal flushing versus established treatments for infertility would be a useful further guide to clinical practice.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 5 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 16%
Other 3 12%
Student > Postgraduate 2 8%
Professor 2 8%
Other 9 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 64%
Unspecified 5 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Neuroscience 1 4%
Arts and Humanities 1 4%
Other 1 4%