A review of 85 clinical trials published in The Lancet found that most IVF “add-ons” offer little to no proven benefit for fertility outcomes. Researchers at the University of Melbourne, led by Sarah Lensen, identified that seven out of ten common add-ons lack sufficient evidence, often leading to unnecessary financial and medical burdens for patients seeking assisted reproduction.
Which IVF add-ons lack scientific support?
The study identified a wide range of procedures, tests, and medicines that are frequently marketed to patients despite a lack of robust data. According to the researchers, seven of every ten widely used add-ons either showed no measurable effect on fertility or were backed by low-quality evidence.
Commonly used but unproven treatments include:
- Acupuncture: Often used for relaxation or blood flow, but lacking conclusive clinical benefit in these trials.
- Inflammation-reducing medication: Administered to alter the uterine environment without proven success.
- Uterine lining biopsies: Used to assess gene expression patterns, which the study suggests lacks sufficient evidence.
- Nutrient injections: Specifically soybean oil and egg yolk administered into the blood.
- Platelet-rich plasma (PRP): Administered to the ovaries or uterus.
- PGT-A: Pre-implantation genetic testing for aneuploidy, a screening technique for chromosomal abnormalities, which also showed insufficient evidence for routine use.
Which treatments show potential benefits?
While the majority of add-ons failed to meet scientific standards, the researchers noted three specific procedures that showed some potential for improving outcomes, though they cautioned that the evidence is still not definitive.
EmbryoGlue, a transfer medium containing hyaluronic acid, may increase the likelihood of pregnancy and live births. However, Lensen noted that findings regarding live birth rates specifically were not robust.
Endometrial scratching, which involves deliberately disrupting the uterine lining before embryo transfer, was also associated with a possible increase in pregnancy and live birth rates. Additionally, physiological intracytoplasmic sperm injection (PICSI) showed weak evidence of its ability to reduce miscarriage risks by selecting more mature sperm.
Comparison of Evidence Levels
| Add-on Category | Common Examples | Evidence Status |
|---|---|---|
| Unproven | Acupuncture, PRP, PGT-A, Soybean oil | Little to no measurable effect |
| Potentially Beneficial | EmbryoGlue, Endometrial scratching | Weak or non-robust evidence |
Why is misinformation spreading in fertility clinics?
The study highlights a significant gap between clinical evidence and patient perception. Sarah Lensen noted that private clinic websites and social media platforms—specifically Facebook and Reddit—often overstate the benefits of these procedures while omitting potential costs and risks.
For many patients, the mere availability of an add-on acts as an “implicit endorsement” of its efficacy. Because clinics offer these services, patients often assume they are medically necessary or scientifically validated.
Data from the study shows that nearly all IVF patients surveyed in Australia rely heavily on clinic websites, and over 60% use social media to guide their treatment choices. This creates a cycle where marketing, rather than peer-reviewed science, drives patient decisions.
How can patients identify reliable IVF information?
The future of fertility treatment appears to be shifting toward increased transparency and independent verification. To combat misinformation, the research team launched the Evidence-Based IVF website, a resource designed to provide independent, non-commercial information.
As patients become more aware of the financial strain caused by unproven treatments, industry experts expect a push for stricter regulations regarding how private clinics market elective fertility procedures. The goal is to ensure that “false hope” doesn’t come at the expense of a patient’s financial or physical well-being.
Frequently Asked Questions
What are IVF “add-ons”?
Add-ons are additional procedures, tests, or medications offered alongside standard IVF protocols to potentially improve pregnancy rates, though many lack scientific validation.
Is PGT-A testing necessary for all IVF patients?
According to the University of Melbourne study, there is currently insufficient evidence to support the routine use of pre-implantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) to improve outcomes.
How can I avoid unnecessary IVF costs?
Rely on independent, evidence-based resources rather than clinic marketing or social media forums. Ask your doctor to distinguish between standard care and elective add-ons.
What are your thoughts on the rise of elective IVF procedures? Have you encountered “add-ons” during your own fertility journey? Let us know in the comments below or subscribe to our newsletter for more evidence-based health updates.
