Study designs of evaluations included in the review
No inclusion criteria relating to the study design were specified. There was no detailed reporting of the design characteristics of the included studies.
Specific interventions included in the review
Studies evaluating HSG for tubal pathology were eligible for inclusion. The included studies were of HSG using oil- or water-soluble contrast media. Tubal pathology was defined as the absence of tubal patency (i.e. the absence of filling or the absence of overflow), or as the presence of peritubal adhesions.
Reference standard test against which the new test was compared
Only studies using laparoscopy as the reference standard were eligible for inclusion.
Participants included in the review
No inclusion criteria relating to the study participants were specified. Infertility patients suspected of having one or two closed tubes or having tubal adhesions, and undergoing both hysterosalpingography and laparoscopy, were included.
Outcomes assessed in the review
Articles not reporting sufficient data for the construction of 2x2 contingency tables of the test (HSG) and the reference standard (laparoscopy) for tubal patency and/or peritubal adhesions were excluded. For peritubal adhesions, only those patients in whom patency of at least one tube was demonstrated were included in the 2x2 table.
If studies reported on proximal and tubal patency, the data were analysed separately.
Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios were the outcome measures calculated and reported in the review.
How were decisions on the relevance of primary studies made?
The authors did not state how the papers were selected for the review, or how many reviewers performed the selection.