Transvaginal hysterosalpingo-contrast-sonography (Hy-Co-Sy) is described as a new method for direct imaging of the tubal passage in tubal diagnostics. During one period of anaesthesia, a transvaginal Hy-Co-Sy was followed by either hysterosalpingography or chromolaparoscopy in 42 patients with sterility disorders. The contrast-enhanced sonography of the tubes was performed in eight cases with sterile saline solution (group 1) and 34 cases with a specially developed ultrasound contrast medium (SH U 454, group 2). The findings obtained by transvaginal Hy-Co-Sy were compared with those of the conventional method. By both methods, there was complete agreement with respect to the same evaluation of tubal passage for both sides, partial agreement when firstly the tubes were assessed as unilaterally or bilaterally open--without precise localization of the side--depending on the appearance of fluid in the pouch of Douglas, or secondly, only one side, when compared, showed agreement. In group 1 complete agreement was found once, partial agreement five times and non-agreement twice, while in group 2 complete agreement was found 22 times (65%), partial agreement 11 times and non-agreement once.

No abstract

No abstract

Background: Recent reviews conclude that aphasia intervention is effective. However, replication and implementation require detailed reporting of intervention is and a specification of participant profiles. To date, reviews concentrate more on efficacy than on intervention reporting quality. Aims: The aim of this project is to review the descriptions of aphasia interventions and participants appearing in recent systematic reviews of aphasia intervention effectiveness. The relationship between the quality of these descriptions and the robustness of research design is explored, and the replicability of aphasia interventions is evaluated. Methods and Procedures: The scope of our search was an analysis of the aphasia intervention studies included in the Brady et al. 2016 and EBRSR 2018 systematic reviews, and in the RCSLT 2014 literature synthesis. Intervention descriptions published separately from the intervention study (i.e.published online, in clinical tools, or a separate trial protocols) were not included. The criteria for inclusion were that participants had aphasia, the intervention involved language and/or communication, and included the following research designs: Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT), comparison or control, crossover design, case series. Exclusion criteria included non-SLT interventions, studies involving fewer than four participants, conference abstracts, studies not available in English. Studies were evaluated for completeness of intervention description using the TIDieR Checklist. Additionally, we rated the quality of patient and intervention description, with particular reference to replicability.Outcomes and Results: Ninety-three studies were included. Only 14 studies (15%) had >50 participants. Fifty-six studies (60%) did not select participants with a specific aphasia profile, and a further 10 studies only described participants as non-fluent. Across the studies, an average of eight (of 12) TIDieR checklist items were given but information on where, tailoring, modification and fidelity items was rarely available. Studies that evaluated general aphasia intervention approaches 3 tended to use RCT designs, whereas more specific intervention studies were more likely to use case series designs.Conclusions: Group studies were generally under-powered and there was a paucity of research looking at specific aphasia interventions for specific aphasia profiles. There was a trade-off between the robustness of the design and the level of specificity of the intervention described. While the TIDieR framework is a useful guide to information which should be included in an intervention study, it is insufficiently sensitive for assessing replicability. We consider possible solutions to the challenges of making large-scale trials more useful for determining effective aphasia intervention.

In 30 patients with sterility problems, menstrual irregularities, and/or suspected tumor the uterine wall was evaluated by transvaginal hystero-contrast-sonography (CoSy). These findings were compared with those of hysterosalpingography (HSG) or chromo-laparoscopy which were done during the same anesthesia. In 6 patients there was no coincidence, and additional information of relevance could be achieved by the other procedure. One case of submucous and an other of intramural fibroid were exactly differentiated by the transvaginal CoSy. This was not possible by the HSG. In addition two large intramural fibroids were exactly localized by CoSy, where as this couldn't be demonstrated endoscopically. Two uteri arcuati have not been seen by CoSy, but were recognized by HSG. So we recommend the transvaginal CoSy of the uterus as a pretherapeutic procedure for the differentiation and localization of intracavital and myometrial findings. At least at moment it seems to be that the image of light uterine malformations could be better demonstrated by conventional diagnostic methods.