Cochrane · systematic review · CD003718
Tubal flushing for subfertility
Wang, R, Watson, A, Johnson, N, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2020 · 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
18
current version
GRADE rated
8
No studies
7
Included studies
NR
No studies 7 · 38.9%Ungraded 3 · 16.7%Very low 2 · 11.1%Low 5 · 27.8%Moderate 1 · 5.6%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
Current version onlyTubal flushing with oil‐soluble contrast media (OSCM) versus no intervention
Population: women with subfertility
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Live birth Tubal flushing with oil‐soluble contrast media (OSCM) vs no intervention | OR 3.27 [1.57, 6.85] | 3 studies · 204 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Clinical pregnancy Tubal flushing with oil‐soluble contrast media (OSCM) vs no intervention | OR 3.54 [2.08, 6.02] | 4 studies · 506 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Intravasation Tubal flushing with oil‐soluble contrast media (OSCM) vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Infection Tubal flushing with oil‐soluble contrast media (OSCM) vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Haemorrhage Tubal flushing with oil‐soluble contrast media (OSCM) vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Long‐term complications Tubal flushing with oil‐soluble contrast media (OSCM) vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Tubal flushing with water‐soluble contrast media (WSCM) versus no intervention
Population: women with subfertility
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Live birth Tubal flushing with water‐soluble contrast media (WSCM) vs no intervention | OR 1.13 [0.67, 1.91] | 1 study · 334 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Clinical pregnancy Tubal flushing with water‐soluble contrast media (WSCM) vs no intervention | OR 1.14 [0.71, 1.84] | 1 study · 334 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Intravasation Tubal flushing with water‐soluble contrast media (WSCM) vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Infection Tubal flushing with water‐soluble contrast media (WSCM) vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 334 participants | Ungraded |
Haemorrhage Tubal flushing with water‐soluble contrast media (WSCM) vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Long‐term complications Tubal flushing with water‐soluble contrast media (WSCM) vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Tubal flushing with oil‐soluble contrast media (OSCM) versus water‐soluble contrast media (WSCM)
Population: women with subfertility
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Live birth Tubal flushing with oil‐soluble contrast media (OSCM) vs water‐soluble contrast media (WSCM) | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 2035 participants | Ungraded |
Clinical pregnancy Tubal flushing with oil‐soluble contrast media (OSCM) vs water‐soluble contrast media (WSCM) | OR 1.42 [1.1, 1.85] | 6 studies · 2598 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Intravasation Tubal flushing with oil‐soluble contrast media (OSCM) vs water‐soluble contrast media (WSCM) | OR 5 [2.25, 11.12] | 4 studies · 1912 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Infection Tubal flushing with oil‐soluble contrast media (OSCM) vs water‐soluble contrast media (WSCM) | OR 0.22 [0.04, 1.22] | 2 studies · 662 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Haemorrhage Tubal flushing with oil‐soluble contrast media (OSCM) vs water‐soluble contrast media (WSCM) | OR 0.65 [0.4, 1.06] | 2 studies · 662 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Long‐term complications (congenital abnormalities) Tubal flushing with oil‐soluble contrast media (OSCM) vs water‐soluble contrast media (WSCM) | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 1119 participants | Ungraded |
Tubal flushing with oil‐soluble contrast media (OSCM) versus no intervention
Population: Women with subfertility
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Live birth Tubal flushing with oil‐soluble contrast media (OSCM) vs no intervention | OR 3.09 [1.39, 6.91] | 1 study · 158 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Ongoing pregnancy Tubal flushing with oil‐soluble contrast media (OSCM) vs no intervention | OR 3.59 [2.06, 6.26] | 3 studies · 382 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Adverse events Tubal flushing with oil‐soluble contrast media (OSCM) vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Tubal flushing with water‐soluble contrast media (WSCM) versus no intervention
Population: Women with subfertility
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Live birth Tubal flushing with water‐soluble contrast media (WSCM) vs no intervention | OR 1.13 [0.67, 1.91] | 1 study · 334 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Ongoing pregnancy Tubal flushing with water‐soluble contrast media (WSCM) vs no intervention | OR 1.14 [0.71, 1.84] | 1 study · 334 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Adverse events Tubal flushing with water‐soluble contrast media (WSCM) vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Tubal flushing with oil‐soluble contrast media (OSCM) versus water‐soluble contrast media (WSCM)
Population: Women with subfertility
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Live birth Tubal flushing with oil‐soluble contrast media (OSCM) vs water‐soluble contrast media (WSCM) | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 931 participants | Ungraded |
Ongoing pregnancy Tubal flushing with oil‐soluble contrast media (OSCM) vs water‐soluble contrast media (WSCM) | OR 1.44 [0.84, 2.47] | 5 studies · 1454 participants | Very low Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency |
Adverse events Tubal flushing with oil‐soluble contrast media (OSCM) vs water‐soluble contrast media (WSCM) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Tubal flushing with oil‐soluble plus water‐soluble contrast media (OSCM + WSCM) versus WSCM only
Population: Women with subfertility
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Live birth Tubal flushing with oil‐soluble plus water‐soluble contrast media (OSCM + WSCM) vs WSCM only | OR 1.06 [0.64, 1.77] | 1 study · 393 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Ongoing pregnancy Tubal flushing with oil‐soluble plus water‐soluble contrast media (OSCM + WSCM) vs WSCM only | OR 1.23 [0.87, 1.72] | 4 studies · 633 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Adverse events Tubal flushing with oil‐soluble plus water‐soluble contrast media (OSCM + WSCM) vs WSCM only | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |