Common IVF extras lack strong evidence of improving fertility, research finds
· Medical Xpressedited by Lisa Lock, reviewed by Andrew Zinin
Lisa Lock
Scientific Editor
Meet our editorial team
Behind our editorial process
Andrew Zinin
Chief Editor
Meet our editorial team
Behind our editorial process Editors' notes
This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies. Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility:
fact-checked
trusted source
proofread
The GIST Add as preferred source
Australian women trying to start a family through IVF are being offered optional extras with little or no evidence that they work, new research has found. A University of Melbourne-led study analyzed data from trials, looking at the effectiveness of 10 of the most popular IVF add-ons. The team found there was some weak evidence to support three common add-ons, but little to no evidence that the remainder increased the chances of a successful pregnancy.
"Unproven add-ons can lead to false hope, greater financial strain and unnecessary medical procedures at what already can be a very difficult time for patients," lead author from the University's Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Newborn Health, Dr. Sarah Lensen, said. "IVF clinics and clinicians should carefully consider whether it is appropriate to offer unproven add-ons, as their availability is often perceived by patients as implicit endorsement of benefit."
IVF add-ons are additional procedures, medications or techniques that may be offered to women on top of a standard IVF cycle in the hope of improving the chance of having a baby.
"In the past 10 years, we've seen a growing number of IVF add-on therapies become available to women," Lensen said. "Our previous research showed that many women undergoing IVF opt for one or more of these extra therapies. Our new review finds a lack of evidence that most of the IVF add-ons we assessed provide any benefit to patients."
Optional add-ons included in the research meta-analysis and review, published in The Lancet Obstetrics, Gynecology and Women's Health, were preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy, endometrial receptivity testing, corticosteroids, EmbryoGlue, endometrial scratching, physiological intracytoplasmic sperm injection, platelet-rich plasma injection into the ovary, platelet-rich plasma infusion into the uterus, acupuncture and intralipids.
The study authors found weak evidence for some possible benefit from three IVF add-ons—EmbryoGlue, endometrial scratching and physiological intracytoplasmic sperm injection—and either no effect on fertility or inconclusive results because of limited or low-quality data for the remaining add-ons.
Lensen said it can be confusing to navigate the potential benefits or harms for people trying to have a baby through fertility treatments.
"We need better safeguards to make sure patients are getting clear, balanced and evidence-based information," she said. "At the moment, a lot of patients hear about these add-ons through clinics, social media or online forums, which don't always give the full picture."
Her research builds on the University of Melbourne's Evidence-based IVF website, launched in April 2025, which was designed to give patients independent, easy-to-understand information about common IVF add-ons.
"As part of this research, we tested the website in a large trial and found it improved patients' understanding of the benefits, risks and quality of the evidence," Lensen said. "It also reduced interest in add-ons that don't have strong evidence."
She said one way forward is to strengthen access to independent information.
"Clinics could be required to direct patients to independent, evidence-based resources like this," she said. "That would help ensure patients are making informed decisions, not just relying on what they're told or what they find online."
More information
David H Barad, IVF add-ons: evidence, trust, and what patients are told, The Lancet Obstetrics, Gynaecology, & Women's Health (2026). DOI: 10.1016/s3050-5038(26)00142-1
Key medical concepts
Clinical categories
Obstetrics & gynecologyReproductive healthWomen's health Provided by University of Melbourne Who's behind this story?
Lisa Lock
BA art history, MA material culture. Former museum editor, paramedic, and transplant coordinator. Editing for Science X since 2021. Full profile →
Andrew Zinin
Master's in physics with research experience. Long-time science news enthusiast. Plays key role in Science X's editorial success. Full profile →
Citation: Common IVF extras lack strong evidence of improving fertility, research finds (2026, June 24) retrieved 24 June 2026 from https://medicalxpress.com/news/2026-06-common-ivf-extras-lack-strong.html This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.