Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Methodological quality graph: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item presented as percentages across all included studies.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

Methodological quality graph: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item presented as percentages across all included studies.

Methodological quality summary: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item for each included study.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 2

Methodological quality summary: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item for each included study.

Forest plot of comparison: Surgical treatment (all types) VERSUS no surgical treatment: Salpingectomy (all methods) VERSUS no surgical treatment. Outcomes: Ongoing pregnancy rate, Clinical pregnancy rate, Pregnancy rate according to any definition, Ectopic pregnancy rate, Miscarriage rate, Surgical complication rate.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 3

Forest plot of comparison: Surgical treatment (all types) VERSUS no surgical treatment: Salpingectomy (all methods) VERSUS no surgical treatment. Outcomes: Ongoing pregnancy rate, Clinical pregnancy rate, Pregnancy rate according to any definition, Ectopic pregnancy rate, Miscarriage rate, Surgical complication rate.

Forest plot of comparison: Surgical treatment (all types) VERSUS no surgical treatment: Tubal occlusion (all methods) VERSUS no surgical treatment. Outcomes: Ongoing pregnancy rate, Clinical pregnancy rate, Ectopic pregnancy rate, Miscarriage rate, Surgical complication rate.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 4

Forest plot of comparison: Surgical treatment (all types) VERSUS no surgical treatment: Tubal occlusion (all methods) VERSUS no surgical treatment. Outcomes: Ongoing pregnancy rate, Clinical pregnancy rate, Ectopic pregnancy rate, Miscarriage rate, Surgical complication rate.

Forest plot of comparison: Surgical treatment (all types) VERSUS no surgical treatment: Aspiration of hydro salpingeal fluid (all methods) VERSUS no surgical treatment. Outcomes: Ongoing pregnancy rate, Clinical pregnancy rate, Ectopic pregnancy rate, Miscarriage rate, Surgical complication rate.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 5

Forest plot of comparison: Surgical treatment (all types) VERSUS no surgical treatment: Aspiration of hydro salpingeal fluid (all methods) VERSUS no surgical treatment. Outcomes: Ongoing pregnancy rate, Clinical pregnancy rate, Ectopic pregnancy rate, Miscarriage rate, Surgical complication rate.

Forest plot of comparison: Laparoscopic surgery on the fallopian tube (all types) VERSUS (any other) laparoscopic surgery on the fallopian tube: Tubal occlusion (all methods) VERSUS Salpingectomy (all methods). Outcomes: Ongoing pregnancy rate, Clinical pregnancy rate, Ectopic pregnancy rate, Miscarriage rate.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 6

Forest plot of comparison: Laparoscopic surgery on the fallopian tube (all types) VERSUS (any other) laparoscopic surgery on the fallopian tube: Tubal occlusion (all methods) VERSUS Salpingectomy (all methods). Outcomes: Ongoing pregnancy rate, Clinical pregnancy rate, Ectopic pregnancy rate, Miscarriage rate.

Comparison 1 Laparoscopic surgery on the fallopian tube (all types) VERSUS No surgery on the fallopian tube (all types), Outcome 1 Ongoing pregnancy rate.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Laparoscopic surgery on the fallopian tube (all types) VERSUS No surgery on the fallopian tube (all types), Outcome 1 Ongoing pregnancy rate.

Comparison 1 Laparoscopic surgery on the fallopian tube (all types) VERSUS No surgery on the fallopian tube (all types), Outcome 2 Clinical pregnancy rate.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Laparoscopic surgery on the fallopian tube (all types) VERSUS No surgery on the fallopian tube (all types), Outcome 2 Clinical pregnancy rate.

Comparison 1 Laparoscopic surgery on the fallopian tube (all types) VERSUS No surgery on the fallopian tube (all types), Outcome 3 Pregnancy rate ‐ any definition.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Laparoscopic surgery on the fallopian tube (all types) VERSUS No surgery on the fallopian tube (all types), Outcome 3 Pregnancy rate ‐ any definition.

Comparison 1 Laparoscopic surgery on the fallopian tube (all types) VERSUS No surgery on the fallopian tube (all types), Outcome 4 Ectopic pregnancy rate.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Laparoscopic surgery on the fallopian tube (all types) VERSUS No surgery on the fallopian tube (all types), Outcome 4 Ectopic pregnancy rate.

Comparison 1 Laparoscopic surgery on the fallopian tube (all types) VERSUS No surgery on the fallopian tube (all types), Outcome 5 Miscarriage rate.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Laparoscopic surgery on the fallopian tube (all types) VERSUS No surgery on the fallopian tube (all types), Outcome 5 Miscarriage rate.

Comparison 1 Laparoscopic surgery on the fallopian tube (all types) VERSUS No surgery on the fallopian tube (all types), Outcome 6 Surgical complication rate.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 Laparoscopic surgery on the fallopian tube (all types) VERSUS No surgery on the fallopian tube (all types), Outcome 6 Surgical complication rate.

Comparison 2 Occlusion of the fallopian tube VERSUS no intervention on the fallopian tube, Outcome 1 Ongoing pregnancy rate.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Occlusion of the fallopian tube VERSUS no intervention on the fallopian tube, Outcome 1 Ongoing pregnancy rate.

Comparison 2 Occlusion of the fallopian tube VERSUS no intervention on the fallopian tube, Outcome 2 Clinical pregnancy rate.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 Occlusion of the fallopian tube VERSUS no intervention on the fallopian tube, Outcome 2 Clinical pregnancy rate.

Comparison 2 Occlusion of the fallopian tube VERSUS no intervention on the fallopian tube, Outcome 3 Pregnancy rate ‐ any definition.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2 Occlusion of the fallopian tube VERSUS no intervention on the fallopian tube, Outcome 3 Pregnancy rate ‐ any definition.

Comparison 2 Occlusion of the fallopian tube VERSUS no intervention on the fallopian tube, Outcome 4 Ectopic pregnancy rate.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.4

Comparison 2 Occlusion of the fallopian tube VERSUS no intervention on the fallopian tube, Outcome 4 Ectopic pregnancy rate.

Comparison 2 Occlusion of the fallopian tube VERSUS no intervention on the fallopian tube, Outcome 5 Miscarriage rate.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.5

Comparison 2 Occlusion of the fallopian tube VERSUS no intervention on the fallopian tube, Outcome 5 Miscarriage rate.

Comparison 3 Aspiration of the hydrosalpinges versus non aspiration of hydrosalpinges, Outcome 1 Clinical pregnancy rate.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3 Aspiration of the hydrosalpinges versus non aspiration of hydrosalpinges, Outcome 1 Clinical pregnancy rate.

Comparison 3 Aspiration of the hydrosalpinges versus non aspiration of hydrosalpinges, Outcome 2 Biochemical pregnancy rate.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.2

Comparison 3 Aspiration of the hydrosalpinges versus non aspiration of hydrosalpinges, Outcome 2 Biochemical pregnancy rate.

Comparison 3 Aspiration of the hydrosalpinges versus non aspiration of hydrosalpinges, Outcome 3 Pregnancy rate ‐ any definition.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.3

Comparison 3 Aspiration of the hydrosalpinges versus non aspiration of hydrosalpinges, Outcome 3 Pregnancy rate ‐ any definition.

Comparison 3 Aspiration of the hydrosalpinges versus non aspiration of hydrosalpinges, Outcome 4 Ectopic pregnancy rate.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.4

Comparison 3 Aspiration of the hydrosalpinges versus non aspiration of hydrosalpinges, Outcome 4 Ectopic pregnancy rate.

Comparison 3 Aspiration of the hydrosalpinges versus non aspiration of hydrosalpinges, Outcome 5 Miscarriage rate.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.5

Comparison 3 Aspiration of the hydrosalpinges versus non aspiration of hydrosalpinges, Outcome 5 Miscarriage rate.

Comparison 3 Aspiration of the hydrosalpinges versus non aspiration of hydrosalpinges, Outcome 6 Surgical complication rate.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.6

Comparison 3 Aspiration of the hydrosalpinges versus non aspiration of hydrosalpinges, Outcome 6 Surgical complication rate.

Comparison 4 Laparoscopic surgery on the fallopian tube (all types) VERSUS (any other) laparoscopic surgery on the fallopian tube, Outcome 1 Ongoing pregnancy rate.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.1

Comparison 4 Laparoscopic surgery on the fallopian tube (all types) VERSUS (any other) laparoscopic surgery on the fallopian tube, Outcome 1 Ongoing pregnancy rate.

Comparison 4 Laparoscopic surgery on the fallopian tube (all types) VERSUS (any other) laparoscopic surgery on the fallopian tube, Outcome 2 Clinical pregnancy rate.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.2

Comparison 4 Laparoscopic surgery on the fallopian tube (all types) VERSUS (any other) laparoscopic surgery on the fallopian tube, Outcome 2 Clinical pregnancy rate.

Comparison 4 Laparoscopic surgery on the fallopian tube (all types) VERSUS (any other) laparoscopic surgery on the fallopian tube, Outcome 3 Pregnancy rate ‐ any definition.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.3

Comparison 4 Laparoscopic surgery on the fallopian tube (all types) VERSUS (any other) laparoscopic surgery on the fallopian tube, Outcome 3 Pregnancy rate ‐ any definition.

Comparison 4 Laparoscopic surgery on the fallopian tube (all types) VERSUS (any other) laparoscopic surgery on the fallopian tube, Outcome 4 Ectopic pregnancy rate.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.4

Comparison 4 Laparoscopic surgery on the fallopian tube (all types) VERSUS (any other) laparoscopic surgery on the fallopian tube, Outcome 4 Ectopic pregnancy rate.

Comparison 4 Laparoscopic surgery on the fallopian tube (all types) VERSUS (any other) laparoscopic surgery on the fallopian tube, Outcome 5 Miscarriage rate.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.5

Comparison 4 Laparoscopic surgery on the fallopian tube (all types) VERSUS (any other) laparoscopic surgery on the fallopian tube, Outcome 5 Miscarriage rate.

Comparison 5 Surgical treatment (all types) VERSUS no surgical treatment, Outcome 1 Salpingectomy (all methods) VERSUS no surgical treatment.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.1

Comparison 5 Surgical treatment (all types) VERSUS no surgical treatment, Outcome 1 Salpingectomy (all methods) VERSUS no surgical treatment.

Comparison 5 Surgical treatment (all types) VERSUS no surgical treatment, Outcome 2 Tubal occlusion (all methods) VERSUS no surgical treatment.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.2

Comparison 5 Surgical treatment (all types) VERSUS no surgical treatment, Outcome 2 Tubal occlusion (all methods) VERSUS no surgical treatment.

Comparison 5 Surgical treatment (all types) VERSUS no surgical treatment, Outcome 3 Aspiration of hydro salpingeal fluid (all methods) VERSUS no surgical treatment.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.3

Comparison 5 Surgical treatment (all types) VERSUS no surgical treatment, Outcome 3 Aspiration of hydro salpingeal fluid (all methods) VERSUS no surgical treatment.

Comparison 6 Laparoscopic surgery on the fallopian tube (all types) VERSUS (any other) laparoscopic surgery on the fallopian tube, Outcome 1 Tubal occlusion (all methods) VERSUS Salpingectomy (all methods).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.1

Comparison 6 Laparoscopic surgery on the fallopian tube (all types) VERSUS (any other) laparoscopic surgery on the fallopian tube, Outcome 1 Tubal occlusion (all methods) VERSUS Salpingectomy (all methods).

Comparison 1. Laparoscopic surgery on the fallopian tube (all types) VERSUS No surgery on the fallopian tube (all types)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Ongoing pregnancy rate Show forest plot

3

329

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.20 [1.26, 3.82]

1.1 Laparoscopic bilateral salpingectomy and adhesiolysis versus no surgery on the fallopian tube

1

60

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

3.06 [0.97, 9.66]

1.2 Laparoscopic salpingectomy versus no intervention

2

269

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.99 [1.06, 3.74]

2 Clinical pregnancy rate Show forest plot

3

395

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.31 [1.48, 3.62]

2.1 Laparoscopic salpingectomy versus no intervention

3

395

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.31 [1.48, 3.62]

3 Pregnancy rate ‐ any definition Show forest plot

4

455

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.49 [1.60, 3.86]

3.1 Laparoscopic bilateral salpingectomy and adhesiolysis versus no surgery on the fallopian tube

1

60

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

3.06 [0.97, 9.66]

3.2 Laparoscopic salpingectomy versus no intervention

3

395

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.40 [1.49, 3.86]

4 Ectopic pregnancy rate Show forest plot

3

329

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.68 [0.13, 3.56]

4.1 Laparoscopic bilateral salpingectomy and adhesiolysis versus laparoscopic adhesiolysis

1

60

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.14 [0.00, 6.82]

4.2 Laparoscopic salpingectomy versus no intervention

2

269

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.96 [0.15, 6.01]

5 Miscarriage rate Show forest plot

3

115

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.38 [0.11, 1.28]

5.1 Laparoscopic bilateral salpingectomy and adhesiolysis versus laparoscopic adhesiolysis

1

38

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.17 [0.01, 5.24]

5.2 Laparoscopic salpingectomy versus no intervention

2

77

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.42 [0.12, 1.57]

6 Surgical complication rate Show forest plot

1

204

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

5.86 [0.35, 96.79]

6.1 Laparoscopic salpingectomy versus no intervention

1

204

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

5.86 [0.35, 96.79]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Laparoscopic surgery on the fallopian tube (all types) VERSUS No surgery on the fallopian tube (all types)
Comparison 2. Occlusion of the fallopian tube VERSUS no intervention on the fallopian tube

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Ongoing pregnancy rate Show forest plot

1

65

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

7.21 [0.87, 59.57]

1.1 Laparoscopic proximal tubal occlusion by diathermy VERSUS no intervention

1

65

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

7.21 [0.87, 59.57]

2 Clinical pregnancy rate Show forest plot

2

209

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

4.66 [2.17, 10.01]

2.1 Laparoscopic proximal tubal occlusion by diathermy VERSUS no intervention

1

65

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

4.33 [0.88, 21.30]

2.2 Proximal tubal clamping VERSUS no intervention

1

144

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

4.78 [2.01, 11.38]

3 Pregnancy rate ‐ any definition Show forest plot

2

209

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

4.66 [2.17, 10.01]

3.1 Laparoscopic proximal tubal occlusion by diathermy VERSUS no intervention

1

65

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

4.33 [0.88, 21.30]

3.2 Laparoscopic proximal tubal clamping VERSUS no intervention

1

144

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

4.78 [2.01, 11.38]

4 Ectopic pregnancy rate Show forest plot

1

65

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.94 [0.04, 24.25]

4.1 Laparoscopic proximal tubal occlusion by diathermy VERSUS no intervention

1

65

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.94 [0.04, 24.25]

5 Miscarriage rate Show forest plot

1

25

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.15 [0.01, 3.09]

5.1 Laparoscopic proximal tubal occlusion by diathermy VERSUS no intervention

1

25

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.15 [0.01, 3.09]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 2. Occlusion of the fallopian tube VERSUS no intervention on the fallopian tube
Comparison 3. Aspiration of the hydrosalpinges versus non aspiration of hydrosalpinges

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Clinical pregnancy rate Show forest plot

1

64

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.97 [0.62, 6.29]

1.1 Ultrasound guided aspiration of hydrosalpinges just after oocyte retrieval VERSUS no aspiration

1

64

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.97 [0.62, 6.29]

2 Biochemical pregnancy rate Show forest plot

1

64

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.78 [0.93, 8.27]

2.1 Ultrasound guided aspiration of hydrosalpinges just after oocyte retrieval VERSUS no aspiration

1

64

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.78 [0.93, 8.27]

3 Pregnancy rate ‐ any definition Show forest plot

1

64

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.97 [0.62, 6.29]

3.1 Ultrasound guided aspiration of hydrosalpinges just after oocyte retrieval VERSUS no aspiration

1

64

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.97 [0.62, 6.29]

4 Ectopic pregnancy rate Show forest plot

1

66

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4.1 Ultrasound guided aspiration of hydrosalpinges just after oocyte retrieval VERSUS no aspiration

1

66

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5 Miscarriage rate Show forest plot

1

16

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.25 [0.09, 17.65]

5.1 Ultrasound guided aspiration of hydrosalpinges just after oocyte retrieval VERSUS no aspiration

1

16

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.25 [0.09, 17.65]

6 Surgical complication rate Show forest plot

1

66

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6.1 Ultrasound guided aspiration of hydrosalpinges just after oocyte retrieval VERSUS no aspiration

1

66

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 3. Aspiration of the hydrosalpinges versus non aspiration of hydrosalpinges
Comparison 4. Laparoscopic surgery on the fallopian tube (all types) VERSUS (any other) laparoscopic surgery on the fallopian tube

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Ongoing pregnancy rate Show forest plot

1

100

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.65 [0.74, 3.71]

1.1 Laparoscopic proximal tubal occlusion by diathermy VERSUS laparoscopic salpingectomy

1

100

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.65 [0.74, 3.71]

2 Clinical pregnancy rate Show forest plot

2

238

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.28 [0.76, 2.14]

2.1 Laparoscopic proximal tubal occlusion by diathermy VERSUS laparoscopic salpingectomy

1

100

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.63 [0.74, 3.59]

2.2 Laparoscopic proximal tubal clamping VERSUS laparoscopic salpingectomy

1

138

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.06 [0.53, 2.12]

3 Pregnancy rate ‐ any definition Show forest plot

2

238

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.28 [0.76, 2.14]

3.1 Laparoscopic proximal tubal occlusion by diathermy VERSUS laparoscopic salpingectomy

1

100

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.63 [0.74, 3.59]

3.2 Laparoscopic proximal tubal clamping VERSUS laparoscopic salpingectomy

1

138

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.06 [0.53, 2.12]

4 Ectopic pregnancy rate Show forest plot

1

100

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

3.06 [0.12, 76.95]

4.1 Laparoscopic proximal tubal occlusion by diathermy VERSUS laparoscopic salpingectomy

1

100

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

3.06 [0.12, 76.95]

5 Miscarriage rate Show forest plot

1

43

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.35 [0.20, 9.02]

5.1 Laparoscopic proximal tubal occlusion by diathermy VERSUS laparoscopic salpingectomy

1

43

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.35 [0.20, 9.02]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 4. Laparoscopic surgery on the fallopian tube (all types) VERSUS (any other) laparoscopic surgery on the fallopian tube
Comparison 5. Surgical treatment (all types) VERSUS no surgical treatment

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Salpingectomy (all methods) VERSUS no surgical treatment Show forest plot

4

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 Ongoing pregnancy rate

3

329

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.20 [1.26, 3.82]

1.2 Clinical pregnancy rate

3

395

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.40 [1.49, 3.86]

1.3 Pregnancy rate ‐ any definition

4

455

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.49 [1.60, 3.86]

1.4 Ectopic pregnancy rate

3

329

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.64 [0.15, 2.75]

1.5 Miscarriage rate

3

329

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.86 [0.31, 2.38]

1.6 Surgical complication rate

1

204

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

3.86 [0.18, 81.52]

2 Tubal occlusion (all methods) VERSUS no surgical treatment Show forest plot

2

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 Ongoing pregnancy rate

1

65

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

7.21 [0.87, 59.57]

2.2 Clinical pregnancy rate

2

209

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

4.66 [2.17, 10.01]

2.3 Ectopic pregnancy rate

1

65

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.94 [0.04, 24.25]

2.4 Miscarriage rate

1

65

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.89 [0.09, 9.28]

3 Aspiration of hydro salpingeal fluid (all methods) VERSUS no surgical treatment Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

3.1 Clinical pregnancy rate

1

64

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.97 [0.62, 6.29]

3.2 Biochemical pregnancy rate

1

64

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.78 [0.93, 8.27]

3.3 Ectopic pregnancy rate

1

64

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3.4 Miscarriage rate

1

64

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.07 [0.18, 24.01]

3.5 Surgical complication rate

1

64

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 5. Surgical treatment (all types) VERSUS no surgical treatment
Comparison 6. Laparoscopic surgery on the fallopian tube (all types) VERSUS (any other) laparoscopic surgery on the fallopian tube

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Tubal occlusion (all methods) VERSUS Salpingectomy (all methods) Show forest plot

2

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 Ongoing pregnancy rate

1

100

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.65 [0.74, 3.71]

1.2 Clinical pregnancy rate

2

238

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.28 [0.76, 2.14]

1.3 Ectopic pregnancy rate

1

100

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.33 [0.01, 8.21]

1.4 Miscarriage rate

1

100

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.53 [0.24, 9.59]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 6. Laparoscopic surgery on the fallopian tube (all types) VERSUS (any other) laparoscopic surgery on the fallopian tube