Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Accuracy of Ultrasonography in the Evaluation of Tubal Sterilization Microinsert Positioning: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Carretti, Mayra; Dos Santos Simões, Ricardo; Bernardo, Wanderley Marques; Pinheiro, Walter; Pereira, Anne Kristhine Cavalcante; Baracat, Maria Candida Pinheiro; Soares Junior, José Maria; Baracat, Edmund Chada.
Afiliação
  • Carretti M; Gynecology Discipline, Clinics Hospital, School of Medicine, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
  • Dos Santos Simões R; Gynecology Discipline, Clinics Hospital, School of Medicine, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
  • Bernardo WM; Gynecology Discipline, Clinics Hospital, School of Medicine, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
  • Pinheiro W; Gynecology Discipline, Clinics Hospital, School of Medicine, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
  • Pereira AKC; Gynecology Discipline, Clinics Hospital, School of Medicine, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
  • Baracat MCP; Gynecology Discipline, Clinics Hospital, School of Medicine, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
  • Soares Junior JM; Gynecology Discipline, Clinics Hospital, School of Medicine, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
  • Baracat EC; Gynecology Discipline, Clinics Hospital, School of Medicine, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
J Ultrasound Med ; 38(2): 289-297, 2019 Feb.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30051486
ABSTRACT
The current reference standard to check the position of a tubal sterilization microinsert device after its insertion is hysterosalpingography. The objective of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of 2-dimensional (2D) and 3-dimensional (3D) ultrasonography (US) in the positioning of the tubal sterilization microinsert for definitive contraception. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and Scopus databases through October 2017. Selection criteria included studies that analyzed the accuracy of 2D or 3D US, or both, with respect to the positioning of the microinsert. Data were displayed as forest plots and a summary receiver operating characteristic curves. Values for sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios (LRs) were calculated. The pooled analysis produced sensitivity and specificity values for 2D US in the positioning of the microinsert of 0.88 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47-1.0) and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.88-0.95), respectively, with positive and negative LRs of 8.68 (95% CI, 1.63-46.1) and 0.35 (95% CI, 0.11-1.11), respectively. Three studies analyzed the performance of 3D US, showing sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative LRs of 0.75 (95% CI, 0.35-0.97), 0.82 (95% CI, 0.77-0.87), 3.65 (95% CI, 2.31-5.75), and 0.46 (95% CI, 0.2-1.09). In conclusion, 2D and 3D US are methods that show good accuracy in tubal sterilization microinsert positioning.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Esterilização Tubária / Ultrassonografia / Tubas Uterinas Tipo de estudo: Diagnostic_studies / Systematic_reviews Limite: Female / Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2019 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Esterilização Tubária / Ultrassonografia / Tubas Uterinas Tipo de estudo: Diagnostic_studies / Systematic_reviews Limite: Female / Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2019 Tipo de documento: Article