Evidence mapPaperPMID 37899034Full record

SynthesisGynecologic and obstetric investigation2023

Efficacy of Hysteroscopy in Improving Fertility Outcomes in Women Undergoing Assisted Reproductive Technique: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Salvatore Giovanni Vitale, Stefano Angioni, John Preston Parry, Attilio Di Spiezio Sardo, Sergio Haimovich, Jose Carugno, Luis Alonso Pacheco, Tirso Perez-Medina, Nash Moawad, Pasquale De Franciscis and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Gynecologic and obstetric investigation, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 9 institutions in 4 countries.

Salvatore Giovanni VitaleDivision of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy.
Stefano AngioniDivision of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy.
John Preston ParryParryscope and Positive Steps Fertility, Madison, Mississippi, USA.
Attilio Di Spiezio SardoDepartment of Public Health, School of Medicine, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Sergio HaimovichDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Laniado University Hospital, Netanya, Israel.
Jose CarugnoObstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Science Department, Minimally Invasive Gynecology Division, University of Miami, Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, USA.
Luis Alonso PachecoUnidad De Endoscopia Ginecológica, Centro Gutenberg, Hospital Xanit Internacional, Málaga, Spain.
Tirso Perez-MedinaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Puerta De Hierro Majadahonda, Autonoma University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
Nash MoawadDivision of Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, Florida, USA.
Pasquale De FranciscisDepartment of Woman, Child and General and Specialized Surgery, Obstetrics and Gynecology Unit, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", Naples, Italy.
Gaetano RiemmaDepartment of Woman, Child and General and Specialized Surgery, Obstetrics and Gynecology Unit, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", Naples, Italy.
University of Cagliari · ITUniversity of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli" · ITFederico II University Hospital · ITHospital Ruber Internacional · ESHospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro Majadahonda · ESLaniado Hospital · ILUniversity of Florida · USUniversity of Miami · USUniversity of Mississippi Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionUsefulness of hysteroscopy before assisted reproductive technique (ART) was considered debatable. However, over the last decade, several new trials have been added to available literature. We aimed to assess the impact of diagnostic and operative hysteroscopy on reproductive outcomes of infertile women with and without intrauterine abnormalities. MATERIALS AND

methodsMEDLINE, Scopus, SciELO, Embase, Cochrane Library at CENTRAL, PROSPERO, CINAHL, grey literature, conference proceedings, and international controlled trials registries were searched without temporal, geographical, or language restrictions. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of infertile women comparing hysteroscopy versus no hysteroscopy prior to the first ART or after at least one failed attempt were included. RCTs of infertile women with intrauterine pathology comparing diagnostic versus operative hysteroscopy were included in separate analysis. Random-effect meta-analysis was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation and Cochrane criteria were used for quality of evidence and risk of bias assessment. Primary outcome was live birth rate (LBR). Secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy (CPR) and pregnancy loss rate.

resultsFifteen studies (5,038 women) were included. Compared to no hysteroscopy before first or after failed ART attempts, moderate-quality evidence showed that hysteroscopy increased the LBR (relative risk [RR] 1.24, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.09-1.43, I2 = 21%), confirmed by subgroup analysis for women with failure after one or more ART cycles (RR 1.43, 95% CI: 1.19-1.72, I2 = 0%) but not before the first ART. Moderate-quality evidence showed that it increased the CPR (RR 1.36, 95% CI: 1.18-1.57; I2 = 51%), confirmed in subgroup analysis for both implantation failure (RR 1.40, 95% CI: 1.12-1.74, I2 = 52%) and before first ART (RR 1.32, 95% CI: 1.11-1.57, I2 = 42%). Low-quality data suggest that operative hysteroscopy increases CPR when used to treat intrauterine pathologies (RR 2.13, 95% CI: 1.56-2.92, I2 = 0%).

conclusionsAlthough moderate-quality evidence supports performing hysteroscopy before ART in women with history of implantation failure, hysteroscopic evaluation of uterine cavity should be considered a first-line technique in all infertile women undergoing ART. Additional high-quality RCTs are still needed, particularly to assess yield during couple's initial evaluation even before ART is considered.

Indexed as

HysteroscopyInfertility, FemaleFemaleFertilityHumansLive BirthPregnancyPregnancy RateRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicReproductive Techniques, AssistedUterusHysteroscopyIn vitro fertilizationPregnancy ratesReproductive outcomes

Identifiers

PMID37899034
PMCPMC10794974
OpenAlexW4387968914

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.