Comparison of fertility outcomes between oil‑based and water‑based contrast media during hysterosalpingography: A meta‑analysis.

IF 2.4 4区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Jun Chen, Shushu Liu, Jianguo Lu
{"title":"Comparison of fertility outcomes between oil‑based and water‑based contrast media during hysterosalpingography: A meta‑analysis.","authors":"Jun Chen, Shushu Liu, Jianguo Lu","doi":"10.3892/etm.2023.12148","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Water-based and oil-based contrast media are both widely used in clinical practice for patients receiving hysterosalpingography (HSG). However, minor controversy exists about whether the oil-based contrast medium has a superior fertility-enhancing effect during HSG. The present meta-analysis intended to comprehensively compare the fertility outcomes of patients receiving either an oil-based or a water-based contrast medium during HSG. Web of Science, PubMed, Excerpta Medica Database, Cochrane, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data and China Science and Technology Journal Database were examined for literature comparing the fertility enhancement between oil-based and water-based contrast media during HSG up to November 10, 2022 and there was no cut off for studies published earlier than any given year. Data for clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, live birth, miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy were extracted and analyzed. A total of 11 studies with 2,462 patients receiving oil-based contrast medium and 2,830 patients receiving water-based contrast medium during HSG were included. Relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were presented for outcome assessment, and the random effects model was utilized for all analyses. Publication bias was analyzed using Egger's and Begg's tests. The results indicated that the rate of clinical pregnancy was increased using oil-based contrast medium compared with water-based contrast medium [relative risk (RR) (95% CI), 1.29 (1.07, 1.54); P=0.006]. In addition, the rate of ongoing pregnancy [RR (95% CI), 1.39 (1.22, 1.59); P#x003C;0.001] and live birth [RR (95% CI), 1.41 (1.07, 1.87); P=0.016] were also increased using oil-based contrast medium compared with water-based contrast medium. However, miscarriage [RR (95% CI), 1.06 (0.61, 1.86); P=0.833] and ectopic pregnancy [RR (95% CI), 0.66 (0.18, 2.36); P=0.518] were not affected by using oil-based or water-based contrast medium. Begg's test and Egger's test suggested that no publication bias of clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, live birth, miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy existed (all P>0.05), which indicated the stability of the present meta-analysis. In conclusion, the oil-based contrast medium enhances fertility outcomes compared with the water-based contrast medium in patients receiving HSG.","PeriodicalId":12285,"journal":{"name":"Experimental and therapeutic medicine","volume":"26 3","pages":"449"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/9b/9e/etm-26-03-12148.PMC10443060.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Experimental and therapeutic medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2023.12148","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Water-based and oil-based contrast media are both widely used in clinical practice for patients receiving hysterosalpingography (HSG). However, minor controversy exists about whether the oil-based contrast medium has a superior fertility-enhancing effect during HSG. The present meta-analysis intended to comprehensively compare the fertility outcomes of patients receiving either an oil-based or a water-based contrast medium during HSG. Web of Science, PubMed, Excerpta Medica Database, Cochrane, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data and China Science and Technology Journal Database were examined for literature comparing the fertility enhancement between oil-based and water-based contrast media during HSG up to November 10, 2022 and there was no cut off for studies published earlier than any given year. Data for clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, live birth, miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy were extracted and analyzed. A total of 11 studies with 2,462 patients receiving oil-based contrast medium and 2,830 patients receiving water-based contrast medium during HSG were included. Relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were presented for outcome assessment, and the random effects model was utilized for all analyses. Publication bias was analyzed using Egger's and Begg's tests. The results indicated that the rate of clinical pregnancy was increased using oil-based contrast medium compared with water-based contrast medium [relative risk (RR) (95% CI), 1.29 (1.07, 1.54); P=0.006]. In addition, the rate of ongoing pregnancy [RR (95% CI), 1.39 (1.22, 1.59); P#x003C;0.001] and live birth [RR (95% CI), 1.41 (1.07, 1.87); P=0.016] were also increased using oil-based contrast medium compared with water-based contrast medium. However, miscarriage [RR (95% CI), 1.06 (0.61, 1.86); P=0.833] and ectopic pregnancy [RR (95% CI), 0.66 (0.18, 2.36); P=0.518] were not affected by using oil-based or water-based contrast medium. Begg's test and Egger's test suggested that no publication bias of clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, live birth, miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy existed (all P>0.05), which indicated the stability of the present meta-analysis. In conclusion, the oil-based contrast medium enhances fertility outcomes compared with the water-based contrast medium in patients receiving HSG.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

子宫输卵管造影时油基造影剂和水基造影剂生育结果的比较:一项荟萃分析。
水基造影剂和油基造影剂在临床中广泛应用于子宫输卵管造影(HSG)。然而,关于油基造影剂在HSG中是否具有更好的增育效果,存在较小的争议。本荟萃分析旨在全面比较HSG期间接受油基造影剂或水基造影剂的患者的生育结果。我们检索了Web of Science、PubMed、摘录医学数据库、Cochrane、中国国家知识基础设施、万方数据和中国科技期刊数据库,以比较截至2022年11月10日的HSG期间油基造影剂和水基造影剂增强生育力的文献,并且没有截断任何早于给定年份发表的研究。对临床妊娠、持续妊娠、活产、流产和异位妊娠的资料进行提取和分析。共纳入11项研究,其中2462例患者在HSG期间接受油基造影剂,2830例患者接受水基造影剂。采用相对危险度(RRs)和95%置信区间(ci)进行结果评估,所有分析均采用随机效应模型。采用Egger’s和Begg’s检验分析发表偏倚。结果显示,与水基造影剂相比,使用油基造影剂可增加临床妊娠率[相对危险度(RR) (95% CI), 1.29 (1.07, 1.54);P = 0.006)。此外,持续妊娠率[RR (95% CI), 1.39 (1.22, 1.59);P#x003C;0.001]和活产[RR (95% CI), 1.41 (1.07, 1.87);P=0.016]与水基造影剂相比,油基造影剂也增加了。然而,流产[RR (95% CI), 1.06 (0.61, 1.86);P=0.833]和异位妊娠[RR (95% CI), 0.66 (0.18, 2.36);P=0.518]不受油基或水基造影剂的影响。Begg’s检验和Egger’s检验提示临床妊娠、持续妊娠、活产、流产和异位妊娠均不存在发表偏倚(P>0.05),说明本meta分析的稳定性。总之,与水基造影剂相比,油基造影剂可提高接受输卵管移植患者的生育结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Experimental and therapeutic medicine
Experimental and therapeutic medicine MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
570
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍:
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信