Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance hysterosalpingography for fallopian tubal occlusion in the context of female infertility when compared to the diagnostic performance of conditional X-ray hysterosalpingography.
Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, EBSCO, Cochrane Library database, Scopus were searched for studies in which magnetic resonance hysterosalpingography and X-ray hysterosalpingography were used as diagnostic tools for tubal occlusion assessment; databases were searched through April 2020. Two researchers conducted study inclusion assessment, data extraction, a systematic review, and pooled meta-analysis independently. Stata 15.1 software was used to analyze the pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, positive and negative likelihood ratios, and the area under the summary receiver-operating characteristic curve of magnetic resonance hysterosalpingography.
Results: A total of five studies involving 101 patients and 198 fallopian tubes were finally included. Compared with the conditional X-ray hysterosalpingography (the imaging gold standard), the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, diagnostic odds ratio and the area under the curve of magnetic resonance hysterosalpingography for tubal occlusion were 0.91 (95% CI: 0.48-0.99), 1.00 (95% CI: 0.87-1.00), 230.47 (95% CI: 6.79-7824.72), 0.09 (95% CI: 0.01-0.80), 2676.10 (95% CI: 61.35-120,000), and 1.00 (95% CI: 0.99-1.00), respectively. Subgroup analyses revealed that viscosity of contrast agent (P = 0.024) and test order (P = 0.036) affected the accuracy of MR-HSG to evaluate tubal occlusion.
Conclusions: Our meta-analysis indicated magnetic resonance hysterosalpingography may serve as an alternative for further evaluation of fallopian tubal occlusion of female infertility.
Keywords: Female; Hysterosalpingography; Infertility; Magnetic resonance imaging; Meta-analysis.
Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.