Reproducibility of the interpretation of pelvic x-ray 3 months after hysteroscopic sterilization with Essure

Objective To estimate the diagnostic accuracy and the interobserver reproducibility of pelvic x-rays in the diagnosis of successful bilateral sterilization with Essure after a 3-month follow-up period. Design Interobserver study. Setting Outpatient department of obstetrics and gynecology in a Dutch...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Fertility and sterility 2010-09, Vol.94 (4), p.1202-1207
Hauptverfasser: Veersema, Sebastiaan, M.D, Mol, Ben W.J., M.D., Ph.D, Brölmann, Hans A.M., M.D., Ph.D
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1207
container_issue 4
container_start_page 1202
container_title Fertility and sterility
container_volume 94
creator Veersema, Sebastiaan, M.D
Mol, Ben W.J., M.D., Ph.D
Brölmann, Hans A.M., M.D., Ph.D
description Objective To estimate the diagnostic accuracy and the interobserver reproducibility of pelvic x-rays in the diagnosis of successful bilateral sterilization with Essure after a 3-month follow-up period. Design Interobserver study. Setting Outpatient department of obstetrics and gynecology in a Dutch teaching hospital. Patient(s) Patients with successful bilateral Essure placement. Intervention(s) Hysteroscopic sterilization with Essure and pelvic x-ray and hysterosalpingography after a 3-month follow-up period. Main Outcome Measure(s) Six observers evaluations of 47 pelvic x-rays from 47 patients 3 months after a technical successful bilateral placement of microinserts to estimate the reliability of the sterilization. Diagnostic accuracy of pelvic x-ray per observer in detecting incorrectly positioned microinserts was expressed in terms of sensitivity and specificity, with hysterosalpingography as the reference strategy. Reproducibility of the interpretation of the pelvic x-ray was expressed as κ-values. Result(s) The sensitivity and specificity for x-rays read by gynecologists was 0.67 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.29–0.96) and 0.79 (95% CI, 0.58–1.00) and for radiologists 1.0 and 0.5 (95% CI, 0.36–0.64). The interobserver agreement in reliability of pelvic x-ray of hysteroscopic sterilization assessment with Essure ranged from slight (κ-value = 0.09) for gynecologists to moderate (κ-value = 0.52) for radiologists. Conclusion(s) Test characteristics of pelvic x-ray as the imaging technique to assess the position of the Essure microinserts and tubal patency were poor, as was the reproducibility, particularly if gynecologists performed the evaluation. We do not recommend the use of pelvic x-ray for the assessment of the positioning of microinserts after hysteroscopic sterilization.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.05.023
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_753997654</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>1_s2_0_S0015028209010991</els_id><sourcerecordid>753997654</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c508t-2b48b25798f7111a1f3894547dcddea8f78e68051fc250dc662d1d8a2557c20e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkkFv1DAQhS0EotvCX0C-IE4JYydO7AsSVG1BqoTUwtny2hOtl2wSbKcQfn0d7YpKnLjY1uibN89PQwhlUDJgzft92WFIQ0z5LDmAKkGUwKtnZMOEaArRiOo52QAwUQCX_Iycx7gHgIa1_CU5Y0rUUMt6Q_o7nMLoZuu3vvdpoWNH0w6pH7L2FDCZ5MdhrU7YP3hLfxfBLLSih3FIu0hNlzm6W1YrY7TjlJH1ncX-HFt_-bSjVzHOAV-RF53pI74-3Rfk-_XVt8vPxe3Xmy-XH28LK0Cmgm9rueWiVbJrGWOGdZVUtahbZ51Dk6sSGwmCdZYLcLZpuGNOGi5EazlgdUHeHXXz137OGJM--Gix782A4xx1Kyql2kbUmZRH0mb3MWCnp-APJiyagV6j1nv9FLVeo9YgdI46t745DZm3B3RPjadsM_D2BJhoTd8FM1gf_3K8YkpJYJn7dOQwR_LgMehoPQ4WnQ9ok3aj_x83H_4Rsb0ffJ77AxeM-3EOQ45cMx25Bn2_rsa6GaCAgVKsegRH77kV</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>753997654</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Reproducibility of the interpretation of pelvic x-ray 3 months after hysteroscopic sterilization with Essure</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Veersema, Sebastiaan, M.D ; Mol, Ben W.J., M.D., Ph.D ; Brölmann, Hans A.M., M.D., Ph.D</creator><creatorcontrib>Veersema, Sebastiaan, M.D ; Mol, Ben W.J., M.D., Ph.D ; Brölmann, Hans A.M., M.D., Ph.D</creatorcontrib><description>Objective To estimate the diagnostic accuracy and the interobserver reproducibility of pelvic x-rays in the diagnosis of successful bilateral sterilization with Essure after a 3-month follow-up period. Design Interobserver study. Setting Outpatient department of obstetrics and gynecology in a Dutch teaching hospital. Patient(s) Patients with successful bilateral Essure placement. Intervention(s) Hysteroscopic sterilization with Essure and pelvic x-ray and hysterosalpingography after a 3-month follow-up period. Main Outcome Measure(s) Six observers evaluations of 47 pelvic x-rays from 47 patients 3 months after a technical successful bilateral placement of microinserts to estimate the reliability of the sterilization. Diagnostic accuracy of pelvic x-ray per observer in detecting incorrectly positioned microinserts was expressed in terms of sensitivity and specificity, with hysterosalpingography as the reference strategy. Reproducibility of the interpretation of the pelvic x-ray was expressed as κ-values. Result(s) The sensitivity and specificity for x-rays read by gynecologists was 0.67 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.29–0.96) and 0.79 (95% CI, 0.58–1.00) and for radiologists 1.0 and 0.5 (95% CI, 0.36–0.64). The interobserver agreement in reliability of pelvic x-ray of hysteroscopic sterilization assessment with Essure ranged from slight (κ-value = 0.09) for gynecologists to moderate (κ-value = 0.52) for radiologists. Conclusion(s) Test characteristics of pelvic x-ray as the imaging technique to assess the position of the Essure microinserts and tubal patency were poor, as was the reproducibility, particularly if gynecologists performed the evaluation. We do not recommend the use of pelvic x-ray for the assessment of the positioning of microinserts after hysteroscopic sterilization.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0015-0282</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1556-5653</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.05.023</identifier><identifier>PMID: 19540484</identifier><identifier>CODEN: FESTAS</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, NY: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Biological and medical sciences ; confirmation test ; Contraceptive Devices, Female - adverse effects ; Essure ; Female ; Follow-Up Studies ; Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics ; Humans ; hysteroscopic sterilization ; Hysteroscopy - methods ; Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted - standards ; Internal Medicine ; interobserver reproducibilty ; Medical sciences ; Observer Variation ; Obstetrics and Gynecology ; Pelvis - diagnostic imaging ; Postoperative Complications - diagnostic imaging ; Postoperative Period ; Radiography ; Reproducibility of Results ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Sterilization, Reproductive - methods ; Sterilization, Reproductive - rehabilitation ; x-ray</subject><ispartof>Fertility and sterility, 2010-09, Vol.94 (4), p.1202-1207</ispartof><rights>American Society for Reproductive Medicine</rights><rights>2010 American Society for Reproductive Medicine</rights><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright (c) 2010 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c508t-2b48b25798f7111a1f3894547dcddea8f78e68051fc250dc662d1d8a2557c20e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c508t-2b48b25798f7111a1f3894547dcddea8f78e68051fc250dc662d1d8a2557c20e3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.05.023$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=23199801$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19540484$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Veersema, Sebastiaan, M.D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mol, Ben W.J., M.D., Ph.D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brölmann, Hans A.M., M.D., Ph.D</creatorcontrib><title>Reproducibility of the interpretation of pelvic x-ray 3 months after hysteroscopic sterilization with Essure</title><title>Fertility and sterility</title><addtitle>Fertil Steril</addtitle><description>Objective To estimate the diagnostic accuracy and the interobserver reproducibility of pelvic x-rays in the diagnosis of successful bilateral sterilization with Essure after a 3-month follow-up period. Design Interobserver study. Setting Outpatient department of obstetrics and gynecology in a Dutch teaching hospital. Patient(s) Patients with successful bilateral Essure placement. Intervention(s) Hysteroscopic sterilization with Essure and pelvic x-ray and hysterosalpingography after a 3-month follow-up period. Main Outcome Measure(s) Six observers evaluations of 47 pelvic x-rays from 47 patients 3 months after a technical successful bilateral placement of microinserts to estimate the reliability of the sterilization. Diagnostic accuracy of pelvic x-ray per observer in detecting incorrectly positioned microinserts was expressed in terms of sensitivity and specificity, with hysterosalpingography as the reference strategy. Reproducibility of the interpretation of the pelvic x-ray was expressed as κ-values. Result(s) The sensitivity and specificity for x-rays read by gynecologists was 0.67 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.29–0.96) and 0.79 (95% CI, 0.58–1.00) and for radiologists 1.0 and 0.5 (95% CI, 0.36–0.64). The interobserver agreement in reliability of pelvic x-ray of hysteroscopic sterilization assessment with Essure ranged from slight (κ-value = 0.09) for gynecologists to moderate (κ-value = 0.52) for radiologists. Conclusion(s) Test characteristics of pelvic x-ray as the imaging technique to assess the position of the Essure microinserts and tubal patency were poor, as was the reproducibility, particularly if gynecologists performed the evaluation. We do not recommend the use of pelvic x-ray for the assessment of the positioning of microinserts after hysteroscopic sterilization.</description><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>confirmation test</subject><subject>Contraceptive Devices, Female - adverse effects</subject><subject>Essure</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Follow-Up Studies</subject><subject>Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>hysteroscopic sterilization</subject><subject>Hysteroscopy - methods</subject><subject>Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted - standards</subject><subject>Internal Medicine</subject><subject>interobserver reproducibilty</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Observer Variation</subject><subject>Obstetrics and Gynecology</subject><subject>Pelvis - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Postoperative Complications - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Postoperative Period</subject><subject>Radiography</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Sterilization, Reproductive - methods</subject><subject>Sterilization, Reproductive - rehabilitation</subject><subject>x-ray</subject><issn>0015-0282</issn><issn>1556-5653</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2010</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkkFv1DAQhS0EotvCX0C-IE4JYydO7AsSVG1BqoTUwtny2hOtl2wSbKcQfn0d7YpKnLjY1uibN89PQwhlUDJgzft92WFIQ0z5LDmAKkGUwKtnZMOEaArRiOo52QAwUQCX_Iycx7gHgIa1_CU5Y0rUUMt6Q_o7nMLoZuu3vvdpoWNH0w6pH7L2FDCZ5MdhrU7YP3hLfxfBLLSih3FIu0hNlzm6W1YrY7TjlJH1ncX-HFt_-bSjVzHOAV-RF53pI74-3Rfk-_XVt8vPxe3Xmy-XH28LK0Cmgm9rueWiVbJrGWOGdZVUtahbZ51Dk6sSGwmCdZYLcLZpuGNOGi5EazlgdUHeHXXz137OGJM--Gix782A4xx1Kyql2kbUmZRH0mb3MWCnp-APJiyagV6j1nv9FLVeo9YgdI46t745DZm3B3RPjadsM_D2BJhoTd8FM1gf_3K8YkpJYJn7dOQwR_LgMehoPQ4WnQ9ok3aj_x83H_4Rsb0ffJ77AxeM-3EOQ45cMx25Bn2_rsa6GaCAgVKsegRH77kV</recordid><startdate>20100901</startdate><enddate>20100901</enddate><creator>Veersema, Sebastiaan, M.D</creator><creator>Mol, Ben W.J., M.D., Ph.D</creator><creator>Brölmann, Hans A.M., M.D., Ph.D</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20100901</creationdate><title>Reproducibility of the interpretation of pelvic x-ray 3 months after hysteroscopic sterilization with Essure</title><author>Veersema, Sebastiaan, M.D ; Mol, Ben W.J., M.D., Ph.D ; Brölmann, Hans A.M., M.D., Ph.D</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c508t-2b48b25798f7111a1f3894547dcddea8f78e68051fc250dc662d1d8a2557c20e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2010</creationdate><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>confirmation test</topic><topic>Contraceptive Devices, Female - adverse effects</topic><topic>Essure</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Follow-Up Studies</topic><topic>Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>hysteroscopic sterilization</topic><topic>Hysteroscopy - methods</topic><topic>Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted - standards</topic><topic>Internal Medicine</topic><topic>interobserver reproducibilty</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Observer Variation</topic><topic>Obstetrics and Gynecology</topic><topic>Pelvis - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Postoperative Complications - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Postoperative Period</topic><topic>Radiography</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Sterilization, Reproductive - methods</topic><topic>Sterilization, Reproductive - rehabilitation</topic><topic>x-ray</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Veersema, Sebastiaan, M.D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mol, Ben W.J., M.D., Ph.D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brölmann, Hans A.M., M.D., Ph.D</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Fertility and sterility</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Veersema, Sebastiaan, M.D</au><au>Mol, Ben W.J., M.D., Ph.D</au><au>Brölmann, Hans A.M., M.D., Ph.D</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Reproducibility of the interpretation of pelvic x-ray 3 months after hysteroscopic sterilization with Essure</atitle><jtitle>Fertility and sterility</jtitle><addtitle>Fertil Steril</addtitle><date>2010-09-01</date><risdate>2010</risdate><volume>94</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>1202</spage><epage>1207</epage><pages>1202-1207</pages><issn>0015-0282</issn><eissn>1556-5653</eissn><coden>FESTAS</coden><abstract>Objective To estimate the diagnostic accuracy and the interobserver reproducibility of pelvic x-rays in the diagnosis of successful bilateral sterilization with Essure after a 3-month follow-up period. Design Interobserver study. Setting Outpatient department of obstetrics and gynecology in a Dutch teaching hospital. Patient(s) Patients with successful bilateral Essure placement. Intervention(s) Hysteroscopic sterilization with Essure and pelvic x-ray and hysterosalpingography after a 3-month follow-up period. Main Outcome Measure(s) Six observers evaluations of 47 pelvic x-rays from 47 patients 3 months after a technical successful bilateral placement of microinserts to estimate the reliability of the sterilization. Diagnostic accuracy of pelvic x-ray per observer in detecting incorrectly positioned microinserts was expressed in terms of sensitivity and specificity, with hysterosalpingography as the reference strategy. Reproducibility of the interpretation of the pelvic x-ray was expressed as κ-values. Result(s) The sensitivity and specificity for x-rays read by gynecologists was 0.67 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.29–0.96) and 0.79 (95% CI, 0.58–1.00) and for radiologists 1.0 and 0.5 (95% CI, 0.36–0.64). The interobserver agreement in reliability of pelvic x-ray of hysteroscopic sterilization assessment with Essure ranged from slight (κ-value = 0.09) for gynecologists to moderate (κ-value = 0.52) for radiologists. Conclusion(s) Test characteristics of pelvic x-ray as the imaging technique to assess the position of the Essure microinserts and tubal patency were poor, as was the reproducibility, particularly if gynecologists performed the evaluation. We do not recommend the use of pelvic x-ray for the assessment of the positioning of microinserts after hysteroscopic sterilization.</abstract><cop>New York, NY</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>19540484</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.05.023</doi><tpages>6</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0015-0282
ispartof Fertility and sterility, 2010-09, Vol.94 (4), p.1202-1207
issn 0015-0282
1556-5653
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_753997654
source MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Biological and medical sciences
confirmation test
Contraceptive Devices, Female - adverse effects
Essure
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics
Humans
hysteroscopic sterilization
Hysteroscopy - methods
Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted - standards
Internal Medicine
interobserver reproducibilty
Medical sciences
Observer Variation
Obstetrics and Gynecology
Pelvis - diagnostic imaging
Postoperative Complications - diagnostic imaging
Postoperative Period
Radiography
Reproducibility of Results
Sensitivity and Specificity
Sterilization, Reproductive - methods
Sterilization, Reproductive - rehabilitation
x-ray
title Reproducibility of the interpretation of pelvic x-ray 3 months after hysteroscopic sterilization with Essure
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-03T08%3A00%3A13IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Reproducibility%20of%20the%20interpretation%20of%20pelvic%20x-ray%203%20months%20after%20hysteroscopic%20sterilization%20with%20Essure&rft.jtitle=Fertility%20and%20sterility&rft.au=Veersema,%20Sebastiaan,%20M.D&rft.date=2010-09-01&rft.volume=94&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=1202&rft.epage=1207&rft.pages=1202-1207&rft.issn=0015-0282&rft.eissn=1556-5653&rft.coden=FESTAS&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.05.023&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E753997654%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=753997654&rft_id=info:pmid/19540484&rft_els_id=1_s2_0_S0015028209010991&rfr_iscdi=true