The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Pregnancy rates after in-vitro fertilization in cases of tubal infertility with and without hydrosalpinx: a meta-analysis of published comparative studies
Abstract
This meta-analysis was intended to evaluate differences in pregnancy rates after in-vitro fertilization (IVF) in tubal fertility with and without hydrosalpinx. It examined nine published retrospective comparative series and five series published as abstracts for which additional information was obtained. In all, these studies involved 5592 patients (1004 with hydrosalpinx and 4588 with tubal infertility without hydrosalpinx). The main outcome measures were rates of pregnancy, implantation, live delivery, and early pregnancy loss. Pregnancy rates were significantly lower in the presence of hydrosalpinx: 31.2% for the tubal sterility group without hydrosalpinx and 19.7% for the group with hydrosalpinx (odds ratio: 0.64; 95% confidence interval: 0.56, 0.74). Similarly, the implantation rate and the delivery rate per transfer in the hydrosalpinx group were only slightly more than half those of the non-hydrosalpinx group (implantation: 8.5 and 13.7%, respectively; delivery: 13.4 and 23.4%). The incidence of early pregnancy loss was also higher in the hydrosalpinx group (43.7%) than in the control group (31.1%). This meta-analysis makes it clear that hydrosalpinx present during IVF-embryo transfer has negative consequences on the rates of pregnancy, implantation, live delivery, and early pregnancy loss. It would be premature, nonetheless, to conclude that routine salpingectomy should be performed on all patients with hydrosalpinx.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Statistical Aspects of the Analysis of Data From Retrospective Studies of Disease
(1959) · JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/22.4.719 · Cited by 14,689
Beta blockade during and after myocardial infarction: An overview of the randomized trials
Yusuf, S., Peto, R., Lewis, J., Collins, R., & Sleight, P. (1985) · Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases · doi:10.1016/s0033-0620(85)80003-7 · Cited by 3,205
Cited by
Recurrent implantation failure: definition and management
Coughlan, C., Ledger, W., Wang, Q., Liu, F., Demirol, A., Gurgan, T., Cutting, R., Ong, K., Sallam, H., & Li, T. C. (2014) · Reproductive BioMedicine Online · doi:10.1016/j.rbmo.2013.08.011 · Cited by 904
Strandell, A., Lindhard, A., Waldenström, U., Thorburn, J., Janson, P. O., & Hamberger, L. (1999) · Human Reproduction · doi:10.1093/humrep/14.11.2762 · Cited by 349
Surgical treatment for tubal disease in women due to undergo in vitro fertilisation
Johnson, N., van Voorst, S., Sowter, M. C., Strandell, A., & Mol, B. W. J. (2010) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd002125.pub3 · Cited by 340
Metadata
- Authors
- Camus, E.
- Venue
- Human Reproduction
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1999-05-01
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1243-1249
- ISSN
- 0268-1161 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2350
- OpenAlex
- W2131629859
- Cited by
- 307
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 2.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Pregnancy rates after in-vitro fertilization in cases of tubal infertility with and without hydrosalpinx: a meta-analysis of published comparative studies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/humrep/14.5.1243
- The paper
- Camus, E. (1999). Pregnancy rates after in-vitro fertilization in cases of tubal infertility with and without hydrosalpinx: a meta-analysis of published comparative studies. Human Reproduction. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/14.5.1243
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.