The Fertility Link
Evidence Library

IVF Add-Ons: The Evidence Traffic Light

Many fertility clinics offer optional add-ons during IVF cycles. The evidence behind these add-ons varies enormously. This guide adapts the HFEA traffic-light system so you can ask informed questions before agreeing to anything — and avoid paying CAD/USD $500–$5,000 for procedures with no real evidence.

Per the HFEA 2024 National Patient Survey, only 37% of patients said add-on risks were explained to them before they agreed to the upgrade.

Mixed / specific scenarios 6 add-ons

PGT-A (preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy)

Yellow

Embryo biopsy to screen for chromosomal abnormalities before transfer.

Evidence summary

Mixed evidence. May improve per-transfer success rates for patients ≥38 or with recurrent loss. No clear live-birth benefit for younger patients with good prognosis; can reduce cumulative success by discarding euploid mosaics.

Sources: STAR trial (2019) | ASRM Practice Committee | HFEA

Assisted hatching

Yellow

Laser- or chemical-thinning of the zona pellucida (embryo shell) before transfer.

Evidence summary

Limited evidence. Possibly helpful for frozen embryo transfers and older patients. No clear benefit for general use.

Sources: Cochrane review (Lacey 2021) | HFEA

EmbryoGlue (hyaluronic acid transfer medium)

Yellow

Transfer medium containing high-concentration hyaluronic acid.

Evidence summary

Some evidence of small benefit on clinical pregnancy rate. Live birth benefit less clear. Low risk of harm.

Sources: Cochrane review (Heymann 2020) | HFEA

Time-lapse imaging (EmbryoScope)

Yellow

Continuous video monitoring of embryos during culture, with software-assisted selection.

Evidence summary

No clear live-birth advantage over standard morphology assessment. May be a convenience tool that reduces handling. Not unsafe but typically priced as a premium add-on.

Sources: Cochrane review (Armstrong 2019) | HFEA

Growth hormone adjunct

Yellow

Adjunctive growth hormone added to ovarian stimulation protocols.

Evidence summary

Mixed evidence. Possibly small benefit for poor responders. Insufficient evidence for routine use.

Sources: Cochrane review (Sood 2021) | HFEA

Sperm DNA fragmentation testing

Yellow

Lab test measuring DNA damage in sperm cells.

Evidence summary

Useful in specific scenarios (recurrent IVF failure, unexplained miscarriage) but not as a routine screening test. Results should change treatment plan to be worth doing.

Sources: ASRM 2022 Practice Committee opinion | HFEA

No benefit / insufficient 5 add-ons

ICSI (without male factor diagnosis)

Red

Intracytoplasmic sperm injection — injecting a single sperm directly into each egg. Standard of care when male factor is confirmed; routinely used by many clinics regardless.

Evidence summary

No benefit over conventional IVF when sperm parameters are normal. Cochrane reviews and ASRM guidance both recommend against routine use without diagnosed male factor.

Sources: ASRM Practice Committee 2020 | Cochrane review (Boulet 2015) | HFEA

ERA (endometrial receptivity analysis)

Red

Biopsy of the uterine lining to time embryo transfer to the "window of implantation".

Evidence summary

Recent large RCTs (Doyle 2022, Riestenberg 2021) show no improvement in live birth rate. Earlier observational support not replicated.

Sources: Doyle 2022 JAMA | Riestenberg 2021 F&S | HFEA

EMMA / ALICE (endometrial microbiome / chronic endometritis testing)

Red

Tests for microbial composition and chronic infection in the endometrium.

Evidence summary

Insufficient evidence that altering treatment based on results improves outcomes. Not recommended routinely.

Sources: HFEA review | ASRM

Endometrial scratch

Red

Intentional minor injury to the endometrium intended to improve receptivity.

Evidence summary

Earlier positive studies not replicated. Large RCT (Lensen 2019 NEJM) found no benefit. No longer routinely recommended.

Sources: Lensen 2019 NEJM | HFEA

Immune protocols (intralipid, steroids, IVIG)

Red

Various immunosuppressive interventions intended to reduce miscarriage or implantation failure.

Evidence summary

Not evidence-based for unselected recurrent implantation failure. Should not be used outside of specific autoimmune diagnoses.

Sources: ASRM Practice Committee | HFEA
How to use this page

Before agreeing to any add-on, ask your clinic these four questions

  1. What specific evidence is there that this will improve my chance of a live birth?
  2. What does it cost, and is it included in the base IVF fee or quoted separately?
  3. Are there any risks or downsides — for me personally?
  4. Can you provide a copy of the relevant research so I can read it before I decide?

Information only. Not medical advice. The Fertility Link is a decision-support directory. Always discuss treatment decisions with your reproductive endocrinologist.