Couples struggling with infertility may be spending thousands on additional IVF treatments that offer little or no proven benefit, according to two new studies published in The Lancet Obstetrics, Gynaecology & Women's Health. The findings raise fresh concerns about the growing market for so-called IVF “add-ons” and the quality of information available to patients making emotionally charged treatment decisions.

Researchers led by Dr Sarah Lensen from the University of Melbourne reviewed evidence from 85 trustworthy randomised controlled trials involving ten commonly used IVF add-ons. These are extra medicines, procedures or laboratory techniques offered alongside standard in vitro fertilisation, often with claims that they can improve the chances of having a baby.

IVF remains one of the most widely used fertility treatments worldwide, yet success rates are far from guaranteed. On average, only about 30% to 40% of IVF cycles result in a live birth, with outcomes declining sharply as women grow older. Against this backdrop, many patients are willing to try additional treatments that promise even a small advantage.

The review found that seven widely used add-ons, including acupuncture, corticosteroids, endometrial receptivity testing, intralipid infusions, platelet-rich plasma injections and pre-implantation genetic testing for aneuploidy, either showed no clear improvement in fertility outcomes or lacked sufficient high-quality evidence to support their use.

Researchers found weak evidence suggesting possible benefits from only three add-ons. EmbryoGlue, a special embryo transfer fluid containing a naturally occurring substance called hyaluronic acid, may improve pregnancy rates, although evidence for increasing live births was less convincing. Endometrial scratching, a procedure that lightly disturbs the womb lining before treatment, showed some potential to improve pregnancy and live birth rates. Physiological intracytoplasmic sperm injection, or PICSI, a laboratory method used to select mature sperm, may reduce the risk of miscarriage.

Importantly, nearly half of the 157 potentially eligible studies were excluded because researchers identified concerns about their trustworthiness. That finding highlights a deeper problem within fertility research. “Our review finds a lack of evidence that most of the IVF add-ons we assessed provide any benefit to patients,” Dr Lensen said. She warned that unproven treatments can create false hope, financial pressure and unnecessary medical procedures for vulnerable patients.

In a companion study, the research team tested a new evidence-based IVF information website developed to counter misinformation. The trial showed that patients who used the website had a better understanding of the benefits, risks and quality of evidence surrounding IVF add-ons than those relying on standard online information.

The study also revealed that more than 90% of IVF patients surveyed depended heavily on fertility clinic websites, while over 60% turned to social media platforms such as Facebook and Reddit for advice. “There is widespread misinformation about IVF add-ons,” Dr Lensen said, noting that commercial websites often exaggerate benefits while overlooking costs and risks.

Former IVF patient Deanna De Cicco said the resource helped simplify a confusing process. “When you are going through IVF you can be so overloaded with conflicting information,” she said.