scholarly journals A comparative study to evaluate diagnostic accuracy and correlation between saline infusion sonography, hysterosalpingography and diagnostic hysterolaparoscopy in infertility

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 669
Author(s):  
Arti Tiwari ◽  
Beenu Kushwah Singh ◽  
Anuradha Mishra
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
False Negative ◽  
Screening Method ◽  
Saline Infusion ◽  
First Line ◽  
Male Factor ◽  
Gold Standard Method ◽  
Saline Infusion Sonography ◽  
Tubal Patency ◽  
One Year

Background: Till date hysterosalpingography (HSG) remains the first-line method to detect tubal patency and to find out any uterine abnormalities in infertile female while diagnostic hysterolaparoscopy (DHL)  is considered to be the gold standard method, it is during last decades only that saline infusion sonography (SIS)/ sonohysterography (SHG) has emerged as an efficacious method of checking tubal patency and uterine anatomy as well. The present study aims to compare all three methods viz- SIS, HSG and DHL and to evaluate the correlation between these methods.Methods: 98 infertile females of age group 18-35 years with normal Hormonal profile without any male factor infertility, were prospectively selected from the outpatient department of obstetrics and gynecology, GMH Rewa, Madhya Pradesh over one year from 1st August 2016 to 31st July 2017.Results: Diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) of SIS was found to be more than HSG for both tubal patency and uterine abnormalities detection. SIS has less numbers of false positive and false negative rates as compared to HSG. DHL was found to be much superior to both SIS and HSG, also detected additional findings in multiple sites like pelvis, tubes and the uterus on the same setting which were missed on SIS and HSG.Conclusions: SIS may replace HSG as a first step screening method for tubal patency detection, as it has more diagnostic accuracy than HSG and better correlation with DHL and has many advantages and minimal disadvantages as compared to HSG.

scholarly journals Diagnostic accuracy of saline infusion sonography as compared to hysteroscopy in premenopausal women with abnormal uterine bleeding

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 682 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manoj Kumar Tangri ◽  
Ajay Krishna Srivastava
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
False Negative ◽  
False Negative Rate ◽  
Uterine Cavity ◽  
Premenopausal Women ◽  
Abnormal Uterine Bleeding ◽  
Uterine Bleeding ◽  
Saline Infusion ◽  
Saline Infusion Sonography

Background: In patients with abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB), differentiating whether the cause is anovulation or anatomic lesions can be challenging. Transvaginal sonography (TVS) has limitation in form of high false negative rate for diagnosing focal intrauterine pathology. To improve the image in TVS, saline injected into uterine cavity can be used as a negative contrast agent. Aim of our study was to evaluate the clinical value of saline infusion sonography (SIS) by comparing its diagnostic accuracy with that of established gold standard i.e. hysteroscopy.Methods: The study was carried out in a referral and teaching public sector hospital in eastern India from July 2015 to June 2016. Study population consisted of 136 premenopausal women with AUB, who were scheduled to undergo diagnostic hysteroscopy. Patients were first evaluated by sis and then followed by hysteroscopy on a later date.Results: Both SIS and hysteroscopy could be successfully performed in 136 out of 144 patients. When all findings by SIS (any pathological findings in uterine cavity vs. none) were combined and compared with hysteroscopy (gold standard), both sensitivity and specificity of sis were 0.88 whereas PPV and NPV were 0.85 and 0.90 respectively.Conclusions: Because of comparable results obtained by evaluating patients by SIS as well as office hysteroscopy, we recommend saline infusion sonography as a valuable tool for evaluating premenopausal women with abnormal uterine bleeding, before consideration for hysteroscopy.

scholarly journals Hysteroscopy is Gold standard in Uterine evaluation for Infertility, but HSG still has a place

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 98-104
Author(s):  
Manisha Bajaj ◽  
Rajib Roy ◽  
Motiur Rahman ◽  
Joydeb Roychowdhury
Keyword(s):  
Predictive Value ◽  
False Negative ◽  
Screening Method ◽  
Uterine Cavity ◽  
High Specificity ◽  
Filling Defect ◽  
Endometrial Polyp ◽  
Care Hospital ◽  
Saline Infusion Sonography ◽  
First Choice

Background: Uterine abnormalities, congenital or acquired are implicated as causal factor in 10%-15% of infertile couplesreporting for treatment. Hysteroscopy, hysterosalpingography (HSG), saline-infusion-sonography and USG are available for evaluation of uterine cavity. HSG helps in initial evaluation of a sub-fertile woman, but hysteroscopy is gold standardas itallows direct visualisation ofintrauterine pathology and treatment in same-setting, if required. Aims and Objective: To describe hysteroscopic findings of infertile patients and compare the observations with their respective HSG findings. Materials and Methods: It’s a prospective analysis of 105 women with infertility who attendedtertiary-care hospital during 18 monthsfulfilling pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. All cases were evaluated with both HSG and hysteroscopy, observations were recorded and co-related with each other. Results: Among 105 cases, maximum (76.19%) were 25-35 years of age. The primary infertility accounted for 68.57% cases.Abnormal HSG findings observed in 19 cases (20%), most common being filling-defect.Hysteroscopy detected abnormalities in 39 cases (37.14%), commonest being endometrial polyp. Out of 39 cases of abnormal uterine cavity detected on hysteroscopy only 19 were picked-up by HSG, rest 20 cases failed to be identified. The strength of agreement between hysteroscopy and HSG calculated is moderate (Kappa=0.505). Conclusion: As HSG hadlow false positivity (03%), high positive-predictive-value (90.48%) and negative-predictive-value (76.19%) and high specificity (96.96%) it is still considered as a first-choice screening method of uterine cavity. However, high false-negative-value (51.28%)of HSG makes Hysteroscopy a better diagnostic test. HSG couldn’t differentiate endometrial polyp, adhesions and submucous fibroid, shown them as filling defect only.

scholarly journals High Diagnostic Accuracy of Antigen Microarray for Sensitive Detection of Hepatitis C Virus Infection

2008 ◽  
Vol 54 (2) ◽  
pp. 424-428 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jung-ah Kwon ◽  
Hyeseon Lee ◽  
Kap N o Lee ◽  
Kwangchun Chae ◽  
Seram Lee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hepatitis C Virus ◽  
Hepatitis C ◽  
Detection Limit ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
False Positive ◽  
Sol Gel ◽  
False Negative ◽  
Screening Method ◽  
Confirmatory Test ◽  
Specificity And Sensitivity

Abstract Background: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) can be transmitted through blood transfusion. Screening ELISA, the most widely used method for HCV diagnosis, sometimes yields false-positive and false-negative results, so a confirmatory test is used. This secondary testing is labor-intensive and expensive, and thus is impractical for massive blood bank screening. Therefore, a new massive screening method with high accuracy is needed for sensitive and specific detection of HCV. Methods: With sol-gel material, we designed novel antigen microarray in 96-well plates for HCV detection. Each individual well was spotted with 4 different HCV antigens. We used this new system to test 154 patient serum samples previously tested for HCV by ELISA (87 HCV positive and 67 HCV negative) (HCV EIA3.0, ABBOTT). We assessed the detection limit of our microarray system with the use of serial 10-fold dilutions of an HCV-positive sample. Results: Our microarray assay was reproducible and displayed higher diagnostic accuracy (specificity) (98.78%) than did the ELISA (81.71%). Our method yielded significantly fewer false-positive results than did the ELISA. The detection limit of our assay was 1000 times more sensitive than that of the ELISA. In addition, we found this novel assay technology to be compatible with the currently employed automated methods used for ELISA. Conclusion: We successfully applied the sol-gel–based protein microarray technology to a screening assay for HCV diagnosis with confirmatory test-level accuracy. This new, inexpensive method will improve the specificity and sensitivity of massive sample diagnosis.

Comparative Evaluation of Saline Infusion Sonohysterography and Hysterolaparoscopy for Diagnosis of Uterine Cavity Abnormalities and Tubal Patency in Infertility: A One Year Cross- sectional Study

2010 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 133-135 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hema Dhumale ◽  
BR Desai ◽  
Yeshita Pujar ◽  
Bhavana Sherigar ◽  
Shobana Patted
Keyword(s):  
Predictive Value ◽  
Uterine Cavity ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Saline Infusion ◽  
Research Centre ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Tubal Patency ◽  
One Year ◽  
Saline Infusion Sonohysterography

ABSTRACT Objective To compare the diagnostic efficacy of saline infusion sonohysterography (SIS) with hysterolaparoscopy in evaluation of uterine cavity and tubal patency. Methods This prospective one year cross-sectional study was conducted at the assisted reproduction center (ARC), KLES Dr Prabhakar Kore Hospital and Medical Research Centre, Belgaum. A total of 60 patients underwent SIS for evaluation of uterine cavity and tubal patency. Subsequently all patients underwent hysterolaparoscopy with chromopertubation (CPT). Results of SIS and hysterolaparoscopy with chromopertubation were compared. Results For evaluation of uterine cavity, when compared with hysteroscopy, SIS had a sensitivity of 97.8%, specificity of 88.8%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 97.8% and negative predictive value (NPV) of 88.8%. For evaluation of tubal patency when SIS was compared to laparoscopy with CPT, SIS had a sensitivity of 83.3%, specificity of 82.9%, PPV of 42.9% and NPV of 97.5%. Conclusion Saline infusion sonohysterography is a noninvasive, simple, easy and cost-effective procedure. SIS is more sensitive and specific for evaluation of uterine cavity as compared to evaluation of tubal patency.

scholarly journals An evaluation of 2.0 McFarland Etest method for detection of heterogeneous vancomycin-intermediate Staphylococcus aureus

2010 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 141-145
Author(s):  
Montri Pongkumpai ◽  
Suwanna Trakulsomboon ◽  
Chusana Suankratay
Keyword(s):  
Staphylococcus Aureus ◽  
Population Analysis ◽  
False Negative ◽  
Screening Method ◽  
Memorial Hospital ◽  
Dilution Method ◽  
Agar Dilution Method ◽  
Gold Standard Method ◽  
Clinical Specimens ◽  
Pap Method

Abstract Background: Staphylococcus aureus with reduced susceptibility to vancomycin or heterogeneous vancomycinintermediate S. aureus (hVISA) have become increasingly reported from various parts of the world. hVISA cannot be detected by routine test for minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) for vancomycin. The gold standard method for detection, population analysis profiles (PAP) method, is complicated, time-consuming, expensive, and needs well-trained microbiologists. Objective: Evaluate of 2.0 McFarland Etest method, in comparison with the PAP method, for detection of hVISA in clinical specimens. Methods: All methicillin-resistant S. aureus strains from clinical specimens isolated from consecutive patients attended at King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital and Siriraj Hospital, Bangkok between 2006 and 2007 were studied. 1 hundred nineteen specimens were obtained. The PAP method detected six hVISA strains 5 from blood and from cultures) from four patients at King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, accounting for a prevalence of 6.35%. The MIC determined by agar dilution method was in the range of 2-3 μg/mL. Results: 2.0 McFarland Etest method detected no false positive and five false negatives (42%), and gave a sensitivity and a specificity of 16.7% and 100%, respectively. The one-point population analysis screening method detected two false positives and 1 false negative, and gave a sensitivity of 83.3% and a specificity and 98.2%. Conclusion: The 2.0 McFarland Etest method had a very good specificity but a poor sensitivity for detecting hVISA. It may be used as an alternative method to confirm detection of hVISA.

scholarly journals A comparative study of saline infusion sonohysterography and hysterosalpingography for evaluation of female infertility

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 179
Author(s):  
Riya Bhattacharya ◽  
A. C. Ramesh
Keyword(s):  
Female Genital Tract ◽  
Uterine Cavity ◽  
Pelvic Organ ◽  
Saline Infusion ◽  
Reproductive Age ◽  
Infertile Woman ◽  
Emotional Impact ◽  
Saline Infusion Sonography ◽  
Tubal Patency ◽  
Saline Infusion Sonohysterography

Background: Infertility is a complex disorder with significant psychological and emotional impact. It affects 10-15% of couples in the reproductive age group. Hence, evaluation of female genital tract is an important part of workup of an infertile woman. The most commonly used methods are hysterosalpingography which exposes the patient to ionizing radiation and laparoscopy which is invasive. This calls for the need of a low risk method that would be suited for ambulatory application. Saline infusion sonohysterography is a cost-effective, safe, non-invasive and a rapid procedure to visualize the female pelvic organ in evaluation of infertility. The objective of this study was to compare diagnostic accuracy of saline infusion sonography (SIS) over conventional hysterosalingography (HSG) for evaluation of female infertility.Methods: Total 50 patients who presented to the gynecology OPD between 2018 to September 2019 for evaluation of infertility were included for the study. The results of the two procedures were compared.Results: For evaluation of uterine cavity, SIS had a sensitivity of 95%, specificity of 100%, PPV of 100%, NPV 75% and a sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 100%, PPV of 91%, NPV of 100% for tubal patency as compared to HSG.Conclusions: For evaluation of uterine cavity, SIS had a sensitivity of 95%, specificity of 100%, PPV of 100%, NPV 75% and a sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 100%, PPV of 91%, NPV of 100% for tubal patency as compared to HSG.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document