Cochrane · systematic review · CD002125
Surgical treatment for tubal disease in women due to undergo in vitro fertilisation
Melo, P, Georgiou, EX, Johnson, N, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2020 · Cochrane Library
Gynaecology and FertilityAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
21
current version
GRADE rated
6
No studies
13
Included studies
NR
No studies 13 · 61.9%Ungraded 2 · 9.5%Very low 5 · 23.8%Low 1 · 4.8%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Tubal surgery versus no surgery for tubal disease in women due to undergo in vitro fertilisation
Population: tubal disease in women due to undergo in vitro fertilisation
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Live birth rate Tubal surgery vs no surgery | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Surgical complication rate ‐ conversion to laparotomy Tubal surgery vs no surgery | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Salpingectomy (all methods) Tubal surgery vs no surgery | Peto OR 5.8 [0.11, 303.69] | 1 study · 204 participants | Very low Downgraded: imprecision |
Surgical complication rate ‐ pelvic infection Tubal surgery vs no surgery | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Transvaginal aspiration of hydrosalpingeal fluid Tubal surgery vs no surgery | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 176 participants | Ungraded |
Clinical pregnancy rate Tubal surgery vs no surgery | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Tubal occlusion (all methods) Tubal surgery vs no surgery | RR 3.21 [1.72, 5.99] | 2 studies · 209 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Miscarriage rate Tubal surgery vs no surgery | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Ectopic pregnancy rate Tubal surgery vs no surgery | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Laparoscopic proximal tubal occlusion versus laparoscopic salpingectomy for tubal disease in women due to undergo in vitro fertilisation
Population: tubal disease in women due to undergo in vitro fertilisation
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Live birth rate Laparoscopic proximal tubal occlusion vs laparoscopic salpingectomy | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Laparoscopic proximal tubal occlusion vs laparoscopic salpingectomy Laparoscopic proximal tubal occlusion vs laparoscopic salpingectomy | RR 1.21 [0.76, 1.95] | 1 study · 165 participants | Very low Downgraded: imprecision |
Surgical complication rate ‐ wound infection Laparoscopic proximal tubal occlusion vs laparoscopic salpingectomy | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Surgical complication rate ‐ pelvic infection Laparoscopic proximal tubal occlusion vs laparoscopic salpingectomy | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Clinical pregnancy rate Laparoscopic proximal tubal occlusion vs laparoscopic salpingectomy | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Miscarriage rate Laparoscopic proximal tubal occlusion vs laparoscopic salpingectomy | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Ectopic pregnancy rate Laparoscopic proximal tubal occlusion vs laparoscopic salpingectomy | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Transvaginal aspiration of hydrosalpingeal fluid versus laparoscopic salpingectomy for tubal disease in women due to undergo in vitro fertilisation
Population: tubal disease in women due to undergo in vitro fertilisation
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Live birth rate Transvaginal aspiration of hydrosalpingeal fluid vs laparoscopic salpingectomy | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Surgical complication rate Transvaginal aspiration of hydrosalpingeal fluid vs laparoscopic salpingectomy | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 160 participants | Ungraded |
Clinical pregnancy rate Transvaginal aspiration of hydrosalpingeal fluid vs laparoscopic salpingectomy | RR 0.69 [0.44, 1.07] | 1 study · 160 participants | Very low Downgraded: imprecision |
Miscarriage rate Transvaginal aspiration of hydrosalpingeal fluid vs laparoscopic salpingectomy | Peto OR 1 [0.2, 5.08] | 1 study · 160 participants | Very low Downgraded: imprecision |
Ectopic pregnancy rate Transvaginal aspiration of hydrosalpingeal fluid vs laparoscopic salpingectomy | Peto OR 7.39 [0.15, 372.38] | 1 study · 160 participants | Very low Downgraded: imprecision |