New Evidence Questions the Effectiveness of Common IVF Add-Ons – The Lancet Obstetrics, Gynaecology, and Women’s Health
The Lancet Obstetrics, Gynaecology, and Women’s Health shared a post on LinkedIn:
“A meta-analysis of 85 randomised controlled trials found that most IVF add-ons either provide no clear fertility benefit or remain unsupported because of limited or low-quality evidence. Notably, around half of otherwise eligible studies were excluded because of concerns about their trustworthiness, underscoring the need for larger and more rigorous clinical trials. In a companion randomised trial, an evidence-based IVF website significantly improved patients’ understanding of the benefits, risks, and quality of evidence for IVF add-ons compared with standard online information. Together, these studies highlight the importance of ensuring that both patients and clinicians make decisions about IVF add-ons based on robust and reliable evidence.
Safety and effectiveness of ten common in-vitro fertilisation add-ons: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Evaluation of a codesigned resource about in-vitro fertilisation add-ons: an online, parallel-group, single-blinded, randomised trial
Linked Comments: IVF add-ons: evidence, trust, and what patients are told
Is IVF treatment heading in the right direction?
Press coverage:
Most IVF ‘add-on’ treatments have no effect on fertility or remain unproven, study says | IVF | The Guardian
treatments-have-no-effect-on-fertility
Services Sold to Boost I.V.F. Odds Backed by Little Evidence, Study Finds – The New York Times
Most ‘add-on’ IVF treatments offer ‘false hope’ and do not improve fertility, study says-INDEPENDENT
IVF add-ons review: Most fertility treatment extras lack evidence, Lancet study finds – India Today
IVF add-ons lack scientific evidence for increasing live birth rates: University of Melbourne study.”
Title: Safety and effectiveness of ten common in-vitro fertilisation add-ons: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Authors: Sarah Lensen, Jack Wilkinson, Michelle Steeper, Pedro Melo, Mohan S. Kamath, Laurentiu Craciunas, Rui Wang, Vanessa Jordan, Marian Showell, Sara Attinger, Afsana Afroz, Madelon van Wely, Cynthia Farquhar
Title: Evaluation of a codesigned resource about in-vitro fertilisation add-ons: an online, parallel-group, single-blinded, randomised trial
Authors: Afsana Afroz, Hilary Smith, Tessa Copp, Deanna De Cicco, Jack Wilkinson, Eleni Roumian, Michael Costello, Genia Rozen, Michelle Peate, Tammy Hoffmann, Sarah Lensen
Title: IVF add-ons: evidence, trust, and what patients are told
Authors: David H Barad
Title: Is IVF treatment heading in the right direction?
Authors: Geeta Nargund, Adrija Kumar Datta, Rene Frydman, Pasquale Patrizio, Willem Ombelet, Michael Von Wolff, Stuart Campbell
Stay updated on all scientific advances in the field of fertility with Fertility News.
-
Jun 27, 2026, 16:52Hana Shabana: I Honor the Science, the Patients, and the Researchers On World Microbiome Day
-
Jun 27, 2026, 16:27Hrishikesh Pai: Early Signs of Endometriosis – Recognizing the Symptoms Early Matters
-
Jun 27, 2026, 16:17Anuradha Housnur: Excellence Is Not Inherited, It Is Learned Through the Right Mentorship
-
Jun 27, 2026, 16:03PCOS Is a Strongly Inherited Hormone-and-Insulin Condition – Fertility Plus
-
Jun 27, 2026, 15:53Hardeep Singh: The Fertility Industry Is Evolving Faster Than Ever
-
Jun 27, 2026, 15:39Juan J. Fraire-Zamora: Join Us to Revisit a Landmark Ovarian Tissue Study at ESHRE 2026
-
Jun 27, 2026, 15:24Karen Synesiou: ASRM Acknowledged That Routine PGT-A Screening Value for All IVF Patients Remains Unproven
-
Jun 27, 2026, 15:15Erwin Loh: Most IVF Add-On Treatments Are Not Backed by Reliable Evidence
-
Jun 27, 2026, 14:26Christopher Robinson: Recruitment Prior to Conception for Pregnancy Studies