Most IVF add-on treatments do not improve the chances of having a baby, according to a new evidence review from Australia.
These findings are critical for patients facing high financial and emotional stakes. Many clinics market these additional procedures as a way to increase success rates, even when clinical evidence of their effectiveness is limited or nonexistent.
Researchers led by the University of Sydney and fertility expert Lucy Lines published the study in April 2026. The review focused on the prevalence of "add-ons" — supplemental procedures offered alongside standard in vitro fertilization. The team found that only three add-on treatments may provide any benefit [1].
Despite the lack of evidence for most of these procedures, they remain common in fertility clinics. The study suggests these treatments are often marketed to increase clinic revenue and provide patients with a perceived boost in their chances of success.
These supplemental procedures carry a significant financial burden. According to the review, add-on procedures can increase the total cost of IVF treatment by 30 to 60 percent [2].
The research highlights a gap between the marketing of fertility services and the scientific evidence supporting them. While standard IVF protocols are well-established, the proliferation of optional extras often lacks the rigorous testing required to prove they actually help patients conceive.
Researchers said that the pressure to succeed in IVF can make patients more susceptible to paying for unproven treatments. This creates a cycle where clinics offer expensive options that do not statistically improve the outcome of the cycle.
“Only three IVF add-on treatments may provide any benefit”
This study underscores a systemic issue in the fertility industry where commercial interests may outweigh evidence-based medicine. By demonstrating that the majority of add-ons provide no clinical advantage, the research suggests that patients may be spending thousands of dollars on procedures that do not increase their likelihood of pregnancy, potentially leading to calls for stricter regulation of how IVF clinics market supplemental services.
