Search Term

1

“Fallopian Tube Diseases” [MeSH]

2

“Fallopian Tubes” [MeSH]

3

tubal pathology

4

tubal occlusion

5

tubal blockage

6

tubal obstruction

7

tubal subfertility

8

tubal infertility

9

tubal disease

10

1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 or 9

11

“Chlamydia Trachomatis” [MeSH]

12

chlam*

13

chlamydia* antibody*

14

cat

15

“Fallopian Tube Patency Tests” [MeSH]

16

“Hysterosalpingography” [MeSH]

17

hysterosalpingogra*

18

hsg

19

11 or 12 or 13 or 14 or 15 or 16 or 17 or 18

20

10 and 19

Search Term

1

exp Uterine Tube Disease/ or fallopian tube disease$.mp.

2

exp Uterine Tube/ or fallopian tube$.mp.

3

tubal pathology.mp.

4

exp Uterine Tube Occlusion/ or tubal occlusion.mp.

5

tubal block$.mp.

6

tubal obstruct$.mp.

7

tubal subfertility.mp.

8

tubal disease$.mp.

9

1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or 8

10

exp Chlamydia Trachomatis/

11

chlam$.mp.

12

cat.mp.

13

(antibody$ adj1 chlamydia$).mp.

14

tubal test$.mp.

15

fallopian tube patency test.mp.

16

patency test$.mp.

17

exp HYSTEROSALPINGOGRAPHY/

18

hysterosalpingogra$.mp.

19

hsg.mp.

20

10 or 11 or 1 or 13 or 14 or 15 or 16 or 17 or 18 or 19

21

9 and 20

QUADAS ITEM

When to score as “yes”

When to score as “no”

1. Was the spectrum of participants representative of the patients who will receive the test in practice?

Women with subfertility consecutively or randomly selected for tubal patency testing with prospective design.

Inclusion of patients in study based on received reference standard,

or,

case‐control studies comparing women with proven tubal pathology with healthy controls (e.g. pregnant or mothers of newborn child).

2. Is the reference standard likely to classify the target condition correctly?

Diagnostic laparoscopy with dye testing.

Other types of reference standard, including e.g. pregnancy, recent childbirth, or other gynaecological patient populations.

3. Time period short enough between tests to be sure that target condition did not happen by chance?

NA

NA

4. Did the whole sample or a random selection of the sample receive verification using the reference standard?

It is clear from the study that all patients undergoing the index test(s) were verified with a reference test (even if the reference standard was not the same for all patients).

Some patients who received the index test did not receive verification.

5. Did patients receive the same reference standard regardless of the index test result?

All patients underwent diagnostic laparoscopy (DLS), irrespective of the result of CAT or HSG.

The decision to perform DLS was dependent on the results of CAT and/or HSG.

6. Was the reference standard independent of the index test (i.e. the index test did not form part of the reference standard)?

NA (studies in which e.g. CAT is compared to a reference standard of HSG and DLS will be excluded).

NA (studies in which e.g. CAT is compared to a reference standard of HSG and DLS will be excluded).

7. Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard?

If clear that there was a consecutive order of CAT, HSG and DLS.

If presumable that the results of the index test were not blinded.

8. Was the reference standard interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index test?

If clearly stated that the gynaecologist performing DLS was blinded from the results of CAT and HSG.

If presumable that DLS was not blinded, either due to referral mechanisms for DLS or if stated.

9. Were the same clinical data available when test results were interpreted as would be available when the test is used in practice?

NA (all patients are female, age, duration and type of subfertility will always be available).

NA (all patients are female, age, duration and type of subfertility will always be available).

10. Were un interpretable/intermediate test results reported?

All test results including interpretable/intermediate results are reported.

If assumed that such results have occurred but have not been reported.

11. Were withdrawals from the study explained?

Reasons why results were not available for all patients who entered the study reported or results available for all patients.

If some participants who entered the study did not complete the study, i.e. did not receive both index test and reference standard.

ADDITIONAL QUADAS ITEM

12. Was the execution of the index test described in sufficient detail?

Type of CAT assay, cut‐off level used.

Criteria for definition of abnormal HSG mentioned.

Unclear which type of CAT assay, or if optimal cut‐off level was explored afterwards.

Unclear definition for abnormal HSG result.

13. Was the reference standard described in sufficient detail?

Definition for classifying DLS as abnormal provided.

No definition of tubal pathology provided.