2013
DOI: 10.1016/j.mefs.2013.01.013
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison between multidetector computed tomography and hysterosalpingography in assessment of infertile couples

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

1
2
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
3
1

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
1
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Our results were in accordance with Shaaban et al [10] as they found one out of four false positive cases of bilateral tubal block showed normal laparoscopic results. MDCT-VHSG has been able to detect all cases of tubal occlusion (sensitivity, negative predictive value: 100%), while they reported PPV of 83.3%.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 93%
“…Our results were in accordance with Shaaban et al [10] as they found one out of four false positive cases of bilateral tubal block showed normal laparoscopic results. MDCT-VHSG has been able to detect all cases of tubal occlusion (sensitivity, negative predictive value: 100%), while they reported PPV of 83.3%.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 93%
“…CT-VHSG is a valid imaging procedure in the assessment of female reproductive with high diagnostic performance and comparable or even lesser --------------------------------------------------- (11) 3.2 ± 0.15 14.99-15.00 10-20 Con-HSG Laparoscopy 27.7 ± 5.8 34 2013 Shaaban MM et al (12) 3.54 ± 0.6 3.33-3.37 10-20 Con-HSG 29.12 ± 5.5 25 2014 Abdelrahman A et al (13) 3.54 ± 0. -------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This resulted in five final attributes: the chance of having a "false negative" test, complication rate, failure rate, subsequent management after a failed procedure and the waiting time for the procedure. A range of possible attribute levels were derived from literature , Darai et al 2001, Shaaban et al 2013, Foroozanfard et al 2013, Kissler et al 2011, Verhoeve et al 2004, Shibahara et al 2007, Stumpf and March 1980, Roest et al 2020 and discussed with the expert focus group. The final list of attributes and their levels are illustrated in TABLE I.…”
Section: Dce Designmentioning
confidence: 99%