↓ Skip to main content

The FOAM study: is Hysterosalpingo foam sonography (HyFoSy) a cost-effective alternative for hysterosalpingography (HSG) in assessing tubal patency in subfertile women? Study protocol for a…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Women's Health, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#21 of 1,854)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
12 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
101 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The FOAM study: is Hysterosalpingo foam sonography (HyFoSy) a cost-effective alternative for hysterosalpingography (HSG) in assessing tubal patency in subfertile women? Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
Published in
BMC Women's Health, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12905-018-0556-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joukje van Rijswijk, Nienke van Welie, Kim Dreyer, Machiel H. A. van Hooff, Jan Peter de Bruin, Harold R. Verhoeve, Femke Mol, Kimiko A. Kleiman-Broeze, Maaike A. F. Traas, Guido J. J. M. Muijsers, Arentje P. Manger, Judith Gianotten, Cornelia H. de Koning, Aafke M. H. Koning, Neriman Bayram, David P. van der Ham, Francisca P. J. M. Vrouenraets, Michaela Kalafusova, Bob I. G. van de Laar, Jeroen Kaijser, Miriam F. van Oostwaard, Wouter J. Meijer, Frank J. M. Broekmans, Olivier Valkenburg, Lucy F. van der Voet, Jeroen van Disseldorp, Marieke J. Lambers, Henrike E. Peters, Marit C. I. Lier, Cornelis B. Lambalk, Madelon van Wely, Patrick M. M. Bossuyt, Jaap Stoker, Fulco van der Veen, Ben W. J. Mol, Velja Mijatovic

Abstract

Tubal pathology is a causative factor in 20% of subfertile couples. Traditionally, tubal testing during fertility work-up is performed by hysterosalpingography (HSG). Hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HyFoSy) is a new technique that is thought to have comparable accuracy as HSG, while it is less expensive and more patient friendly. HyFoSy would be an acceptable alternative for HSG, provided it has similar effectiveness in terms of patient outcomes. We aim to compare the effectiveness and costs of management guided by HyFoSy or by HSG. Consenting women will undergo tubal testing by both HyFoSy and HSG in a randomized order during fertility work-up. The study group will consist of 1163 subfertile women between 18 and 41 years old who are scheduled for tubal patency testing during their fertility work-up. Women with anovulatory cycles not responding to ovulation induction, endometriosis, severe male subfertility or a known contrast (iodine) allergy will be excluded. We anticipate that 7 % (N = 82) of the participants will have discordant test results for HyFoSy and HSG. These participants will be randomly allocated to either a management strategy based on HyFoSy or a management strategy based on HSG, resulting in either a diagnostic laparoscopy with chromopertubation or a strategy that assumes tubal patency (intrauterine insemination or expectant management). The primary outcome is ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth within 12 months after randomization. Secondary outcomes are patient pain scores, time to pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, miscarriage rate, multiple pregnancy rate, preterm birth rate and number of additional treatments. Costs will be estimated by counting resource use and calculating unit prices. This trial will compare the effectiveness and costs of HyFoSy versus HSG in assessing tubal patency in subfertile women. Dutch Trial Register (NTR 4746, http://www.trialregister.nl ). Date of registration: 19 August 2014.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 101 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 14%
Researcher 13 13%
Unspecified 7 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 7%
Student > Bachelor 7 7%
Other 19 19%
Unknown 34 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 31%
Unspecified 7 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 10 10%
Unknown 39 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 95. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 February 2021.
All research outputs
#380,775
of 23,047,237 outputs
Outputs from BMC Women's Health
#21
of 1,854 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,561
of 327,425 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Women's Health
#2
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,047,237 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,854 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 327,425 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.