Tubal flushing with water‐soluble contrast media (WSCM) vs no intervention
Infection · women with subfertility
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extracted1 study · 334 participantsGRADE not reported
Findings
What do systematic reviews say?
6 questions · 6 findings · 1 reviews
No studies found 3 · 50%GRADE not reported 1 · 16.7%Very low 0 · 0%Low 2 · 33.3%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Tubal flushing with water‐soluble contrast media (WSCM) vs no intervention
Haemorrhage · women with subfertility
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extractedStudies not reportedNo studies found
Tubal flushing with water‐soluble contrast media (WSCM) vs no intervention
Long‐term complications · women with subfertility
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extractedStudies not reportedNo studies found
Tubal flushing with water‐soluble contrast media (WSCM) vs no intervention
Live birth · women with subfertility
Tubal flushing with water‐soluble contrast media (WSCM) showed no clear difference in live birth compared with no intervention (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- OR 1.13 [0.67, 1.91]1 study · 334 participantsLow
Tubal flushing with water‐soluble contrast media (WSCM) vs no intervention
Clinical pregnancy · women with subfertility
Tubal flushing with water‐soluble contrast media (WSCM) showed no clear difference in clinical pregnancy compared with no intervention (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- OR 1.14 [0.71, 1.84]1 study · 334 participantsLow
Tubal flushing with water‐soluble contrast media (WSCM) vs no intervention
Intravasation · women with subfertility
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extractedStudies not reportedNo studies found