Cochrane · systematic review · CD003034
Techniques for the interruption of tubal patency for female sterilisation
Lawrie, TA, Kulier, R, Nardin, JM · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2016 · Cochrane Library
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
30
current version
GRADE rated
28
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 2 · 6.7%Very low 1 · 3.3%Low 11 · 36.7%Moderate 11 · 36.7%High 5 · 16.7%
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
Show all 2 versionsSummary of findings: ring versus clip
Population: women > 6 weeks postpartum requesting tubal sterilisation
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Major morbidity: total Summary of findings: ring vs clip | OR 0.14 [0, 7.05] | 1 study · 545 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Minor morbidity: total Summary of findings: ring vs clip | OR 2.15 [1.22, 3.78] | 2 studies · 842 participants | High |
Minor morbidity: details ‐ procedure‐related injuries Summary of findings: ring vs clip | OR 1.95 [1.36, 2.78] | 3 studies · 3575 participants | High |
Technical failures Summary of findings: ring vs clip | OR 3.93 [2.43, 6.35] | 3 studies · 3476 participants | High |
Failure rate: details (12 to 24 months) Summary of findings: ring vs clip | OR 0.72 [0.33, 1.57] | 4 studies · 3822 participants | High |
Complaints: Postoperative pain (24 hours) Summary of findings: ring vs clip | OR 1.14 [0.88, 1.48] | 3 studies · 922 participants | High |
Summary of findings: modified Pomeroy partial salpingectomy versus electrocoagulation
Population: women > 6 weeks postpartum requesting tubal sterilisation
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Major morbidity: total Summary of findings: modified Pomeroy partial salpingectomy vs electrocoagulation | OR 2.87 [1.13, 7.25] | 2 studies · 1905 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Major morbidity: procedure‐related injuries requiring additional operation or blood transfusion Summary of findings: modified Pomeroy partial salpingectomy vs electrocoagulation | OR 1.9 [0.19, 18.96] | 2 studies · 1905 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Major morbidity: rehospitalisation as a consequence of the operation Summary of findings: modified Pomeroy partial salpingectomy vs electrocoagulation | OR 5.74 [0.73, 45.09] | 1 study · 295 participants | Very low Downgraded: imprecision |
Minor morbidity: total Summary of findings: modified Pomeroy partial salpingectomy vs electrocoagulation | OR 1.6 [1.1, 2.33] | 2 studies · 1905 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Minor morbidity: procedure‐related injuries with no additional operation Summary of findings: modified Pomeroy partial salpingectomy vs electrocoagulation | OR 0.53 [0.06, 5.11] | 1 study · 1610 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Failure rate: total (12 months) Summary of findings: modified Pomeroy partial salpingectomy vs electrocoagulation | OR 4.47 [0.07, 286.78] | 1 study · 295 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Complaints ‐ postoperative pain (24 hours) Summary of findings: modified Pomeroy partial salpingectomy vs electrocoagulation | OR 3.85 [2.91, 5.1] | 2 studies · 1905 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Complaints ‐ persistent pain at Summary of findings: modified Pomeroy partial salpingectomy vs electrocoagulation | OR 1.09 [0.88, 1.47] | 1 study · 1610 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Summary of findings: tubal ring versus electrocoagulation
Population: women > 6 weeks postpartum requesting tubal sterilisation
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Major morbidity: total Summary of findings: tubal ring vs electrocoagulation | OR 0.14 | 2 studies · 596 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Minor morbidity: total Summary of findings: tubal ring vs electrocoagulation | OR 0.97 [0.5, 1.87] | 2 studies · 596 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Technical failures: total Summary of findings: tubal ring vs electrocoagulation | OR 3.42 [0.59, 19.81] | 2 studies · 596 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Failure rate: total Summary of findings: tubal ring vs electrocoagulation | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 160 participants | Ungraded |
Complaints ‐ postoperative pain (24 hours) Summary of findings: tubal ring vs electrocoagulation | OR 3.4 [1.17, 9.84] | 2 studies · 596 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Complaints ‐ persistent pain at Summary of findings: tubal ring vs electrocoagulation | OR 1.22 [0.75, 1.97] | 2 studies · 594 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Summary of findings: partial salpingectomy versus clip
Population: women requesting postpartum or interval sterilisation
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Major morbidity: total Summary of findings: partial salpingectomy vs clip | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 2198 participants | Ungraded |
Minor morbidity: total Summary of findings: partial salpingectomy vs clip | OR 7.39 [0.46, 119.01] | 1 study · 193 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Technical failures Summary of findings: partial salpingectomy vs clip | OR 0.18 [0.08, 0.4] | 1 study · 2198 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Failure rate: total (12 months) Summary of findings: partial salpingectomy vs clip | OR 0.21 | 2 studies · 3537 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Complaints (12 months) Summary of findings: partial salpingectomy vs clip | OR 1.3 [0.92, 1.82] | 1 study · 2137 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Summary of findings: Hulka clip versus Filshie clip
Population: women requesting sterilisation
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Minor morbidity: total Summary of findings: Hulka clip vs Filshie clip | OR 0.14 [0, 7.32] | 1 study · 197 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Minor morbidity: procedure‐related injuries Summary of findings: Hulka clip vs Filshie clip | OR 1.55 [0.73, 3.26] | 2 studies · 2322 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Technical failures Summary of findings: Hulka clip vs Filshie clip | OR 1.04 [0.1, 11.33] | 2 studies · 2325 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Failure rate: total (12 months) Summary of findings: Hulka clip vs Filshie clip | OR 6.2 [0.75, 51.66] | 1 study · 1441 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Complaints: postoperative pain (24 hours) Summary of findings: Hulka clip vs Filshie clip | OR 1.74 [0.99, 3.03] | 1 study · 197 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |