Hysterosalpingo-contrast-sonography vs. magnetic resonance-hysterosalpingography for diagnosing fallopian tubal patency: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

PurposeTo compare hysterosalpingo-contrast-sonography (HyCoSy) and magnetic resonance-hysterosalpingography (MR-HSG) in the diagnosis of fallopian tubal patency. Materials and methodsThe databases of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for records up to November 30, 2019. Studies involved in the diagnostic detection of HyCoSy or MR-HSG for fallopian tubal patency using conventional HSG or laparoscopy as the reference test were included. Data was analyzed by meta-analysis. We compared sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios (PLR and NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and summary receiver operating characteristic (sROC) plots of both HyCoSy and MR-HSG. Quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. ResultsThe analysis included 24 articles involving 1340 patients. HyCoSy was studied in 17 studies, and MR-HSG was studied in seven studies. For HyCoSy in diagnosis of fallopian tubal patency, pooled sensitivity was 89 % (95 % confidence interval [CI], 87 %–91 %), and specificity was 93 % (95 % CI, 91 %–94 %). For MR-HSG in diagnosis of fallopian tubal patency, pooled sensitivity was 100 % (95 % CI, 98 %–100 %), and specificity was 82 % (95 % CI, 74 %–89 %). The sROC showed similar diagnostic accuracy for MR-HSG and HyCoSy. 3D/4D HyCoSy with ultrasound microbubbles had equal sensitivity (95 % vs. 100 %, P = 0.186) and significantly higher specificity (94 % vs. 82 %, P = 0.005) compared with MR-HSG. ConclusionsHyCoSy and MR-HSG showed similar overall diagnostic performance for diagnosing fallopian tubal patency. 3D/4D HyCoSy with ultrasound microbubbles could significantly improve the diagnostic specificity of HyCoSy.