Table 2.

Diagnostic accuracy of HSG compared with hysteroscopy ± laparoscopy in diagnosing female genital tract congenital anomalies

Study	Cases (n)	Sensitivity	Specificity	PPV	NPV	Accuracy
Bocca et al. [6]	125	50	94	71	87	76
Ludwin et al. [37]	83	77	100	100	35	78
De Felice et al. [14]	208	100	100	100	100	100
Momtaz et al. [44]	38	95	78	65	97	84
Guimaraes Filho et al. [30]	54	63	98	83	94	85
Valenzano et al. [58]	54	91	100	100	94	96
Traina et al. [57]	80	100	97	85	100	96
Alborzi et al. [3]	186	70	92	83	88	83
Preutthipan and Linasmita [48]	336	100	97	69	100	92
Brown et al. [7]	46	100	100	100	100	100
Soares et al. [55]	65	44	96	67	92	75
Alatas et al. [2]	62	100	100	100	100	100
Garglione 1997	70	100	100	100	100	100
Goldberg et al. [23]	32	100	100	100	100	100
Keltz et al. [34]	18	90	20	53	67	58
Raziel et al. [51]	60	74	59	62	72	67
Mean (95 % CI)		84.6 (74.4–94.9)	89.4 (80.0–100)	83.6 (74.6–92.6)	89.1 (79.7–98.5)	86.9 (79.8–94.0)

HSG hysterosalpingogram, PPV positive predictive value, NPV negative predictive value, CI confidence interval