Australian women trying for 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 analysed data from trials, looking at the effectiveness of ten 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 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, Gynaecology 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 hopes of improvingthe chance of having a baby.
“In the past 10 years, we’ve seen a growing number of IVF add-on therapies have become available to women, “Dr 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, Gynaecology 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 due to limited or low-quality data for the remaining add-ons.
Dr 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,” Dr 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.”
For more information, visit https://www.unimelb.edu.au/ivf
