Você pesquisou por y - Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia

You searched for:"Flávia Maciel Aguiar"

We found (1) results for your search.
  • Original Article

    Evaluation of the diagnostic agreement between non invasive methods and endoscopy in infertility investigation

    Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2005;27(7):401-406

    Summary

    Original Article

    Evaluation of the diagnostic agreement between non invasive methods and endoscopy in infertility investigation

    Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2005;27(7):401-406

    DOI 10.1590/S0100-72032005000700006

    Views1

    PURPOSE: to evaluate the agreement between noninvasive methods - pelvic pain, transvaginal ultrasound and hysterosalpingography - and the gynecologic endoscopy approach for the diagnosis of tuboperitoneal factors responsible for conjugal infertility. METHODS: this is a cross-sectional study including 149 infertile patients who were submitted to clinical evaluation, transvaginal ultrasound, hysterosalpingography, hysteroscopy, and laparoscopy. In the evaluation of pelvic pain, the following complaints were considered to be abnormal: pelvic pain of the dyspareunia type, dysmenorrhea or acyclic pain, and pain upon mobilization of the cervix and palpation of the adnexa. Ultrasonographic examination was considered to be altered when adnexal or uterine morphological changes (hydrosalpinx, myomas or uterine malformations) were detected. Hysterosalpingography was considered to be abnormal in the presence of anatomical tubal changes and unilateral or bilateral obstruction. The agreement between noninvasive methods and endoscopy was evaluated by kappa statistics. RESULTS: the agreements between pelvic pain, transvaginal ultrasound, and hysterosalpingography and the endoscopic approach were 46.3% (kappa=0.092; CI 95%: -0.043 to 0.228), 24% (kappa=-0.052; CI 95%: -0.148 to 0.043), and 46% (kappa=0.092; CI 95%: -0.043 to 0.228), respectively. When at least one alteration detected by noninvasive methods was considered, the agreement with endoscopic approach was 63% (kappa=-0.014; CI 95%: -0.227 to 0.199). Sensitivity and specificity in predicting alterations on endoscopic approach were 39.5 and 80% in the presence of pelvic pain, 14.5 and 72% in the presence of alteration on transvaginal ultrasound, 39.5 and 80% in the presence of alteration on hysterosalpingography, and 70.2 and 28% in the presence of at least one alteration by noninvasive methods. CONCLUSION: there is a poor diagnostic agreement between the several noninvasive methods and endoscopy in the investigation of conjugal infertility secondary to tuboperitoneal factors.

    See more
    Evaluation of the diagnostic agreement between non invasive methods and endoscopy in infertility investigation

Search

Search in:

Article type
abstract
book-review
brief-report
case-report -
correction
editorial
editorial -
letter
letter -
other -
rapid-communication
research-article
research-article -
review-article
review-article -
Section
Abstracts of Awarded Papers at the 50th Brazilian Congress of Gynecology and Obstetrics
Artigo de Revisão
Original Articles
Carta ao Editor
Case Report
Case Report and Treatment
Clinical Consensus Recommendation
Editorial
Editorial
Equipments and Methods
Erratum
Febrasgo Position Statement
Letter to the Editor
Methods and Techniques
Nota do Editor
Original Article
Original Article/Contraception
Original Article/Infertility
Original Article/Obstetrics
Original Article/Oncology
Original Article/Sexual Violence/Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology
Original Article/Teaching and Training
Original Articles
Original Articles
Previous Note
Relato de Caso
Relatos de Casos
Resposta dos Autores
Resumo De Tese
Resumos de Teses
Review Article
Short Communication
Special Article
Systematic Review
Técnicas e Equipamentos
Thesis Abstract
Trabalhos Originais
Year / Volume
2024; v.46
2023; v.45
2022; v.44
2021; v.43
2020; v.42
2019; v.41
2018; v.40
2017; v.39
2016; v.38
2015; v.37
2014; v.36
2013; v.35
2012; v.34
2011; v.33
2010; v.32
2009; v.31
2008; v.30
2007; v.29
2006; v.28
2005; v.27
2004; v.26
2003; v.25
2002; v.24
2001; v.23
2000; v.22
1999; v.21
1998; v.20
ISSUE