Tubal assessment tests: still have not found what we are looking for

Spyros Papaioannou, Masoud Afnan, John M Jafettas
In: Reproductive BioMedicine Online · 2007 · vol. 15(4) , pp. 376–382 · doi:10.1016/s1472-6483(10)60361-6 · PMID:17908397 · W2081614102
review OA: closed CC0 ⤵ 8 in-corpus citations
View on OpenAlex View on PubMed View at publisher
⚙ AI-generated summary by claude@2026-06, 2026-06-11 ⓘ

This paper reviews tubal assessment tests, highlighting their limitations and the ongoing search for definitive methods to evaluate tubal patency.

One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

Interest in tubal assessment is as old as interest in fertility and infertility. The Fallopian tube is a particularly complex structure and, as such, an ideal method for its clinical assessment is very difficult to obtain. As a result, a number of different methods have been suggested. Some of these methods are more complementary to each other rather than potential substitutes for one another. Some have been used for many years with a clear evidence base for their performance as diagnostic tests. For other, relatively new tests, very little evidence about their performance is available. Research is moving from a purely anatomical approach (are the tubes open or blocked?) to encompassing functional enquiry (are the open tubes functional and, if not, are there interventions with which fertility performance can be improved?). The available evidence, or lack thereof, for the most commonly used tubal assessment tests is reviewed in this paper. Many questions remain, which, despite the increasing success of IVF, will continue to challenge and stimulate specialists and the public, who are interested in ways to maximize spontaneous as opposed to assisted fertility.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Citation neighborhood

Papers in the corpus that this work cites (lower rings, blue) and that cite this one (upper rings, green). Dot size scales with the paper's in-corpus citation count — bigger dot = more influential within the endo/adeno field. Click a dot to open that paper. [ expand to 2 hops ] — adds papers reached through this work's immediate citers/citees. Heavier; up to 60 extra dots.

References (55)

Cited by (8)

Source provenance

openalex
last seen: 2026-06-10T17:14:06.276822+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-07-29T07:08:50.896093+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK