A comprehensive systematic review has indicated that the majority of optional add-on treatments utilized during in vitro fertilisation (IVF) lack sufficient evidence to demonstrate an increase in live birth rates.

一項全面的系統性回顧指出，在試管嬰兒（IVF）過程中使用的多數選擇性附加治療，均缺乏充足證據證明能提高活產率。

The investigation, led by the University of Melbourne and published in The Lancet Obstetrics, Gynaecology, & Women's Health, utilized a meta-analysis of 85 high-quality medical trials to evaluate ten common adjunct therapies. The researchers identified seven procedures—including acupuncture, corticosteroids, and various platelet-rich plasma infusions—that yielded either inconclusive results or demonstrated no discernible effect on fertility. Conversely, only three interventions, namely EmbryoGlue, endometrial scratching, and physiological intracytoplasmic sperm injection (PICSI), exhibited weak evidence of potential benefit, though these findings remain subject to significant caveats.

這項研究由墨爾本大學領導，發表於《蘭塞特-產科、婦科及婦女健康》（The Lancet Obstetrics, Gynaecology, & Women's Health），透過對 85 項高品質醫療試驗進行統合分析，評估了十種常見的輔助療法。研究人員發現有七項程序——包括針灸、皮質類固醇及各種富含血小板血漿輸注——結果不確定，或證明對生育沒有明顯影響。相反，僅有三項干預措施，即 EmbryoGlue、子宮內膜搔刮及生理性胞質內精子注射（PICSI），顯示出可能獲益的微弱證據，儘管這些發現仍有重大限制。

Stakeholder positioning reveals a dichotomy between clinical practice and evidence-based guidelines. While a substantial proportion of the Australian IVF population—estimated between 75% and 82%—utilizes these add-ons, the industry's success rate remains modest at 30–40%. Some practitioners attribute the prevalence of these services to patient-driven demand, often amplified by social media misinformation, while other analysts suggest that commercial pressures within the $810 million private fertility sector may incentivize the offering of unproven treatments. The availability of such options is frequently interpreted by patients as an implicit endorsement of their efficacy, potentially leading to increased financial expenditure and unnecessary medical interventions.

利益相關者的定位揭示了臨床實踐與循證指南之間的分歧。雖然澳洲 IVF 人口中的很大比例——估計在 75% 到 82% 之間——會使用這些附加治療，但該產業的成功率仍維持在 30% 至 40% 的低水平。部分執業醫師將這些服務的普及歸因於患者驅動的需求，而這種需求往往被社交媒體的錯誤資訊放大；而其他分析師則認為，在 8.1 億美元的私人生育產業中，商業壓力可能會激勵提供未經證明的治療。患者經常將這些選項的存在解讀為對其療效的隱含認可，可能導致財務支出增加及不必要的醫療干預。

Institutional responses have focused on the necessity of informed consent and regulatory oversight. The Fertility Society of Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ) has advocated for a transition from state-based to national regulatory frameworks to mitigate the risks associated with the marketing of non-core services. To address the information asymmetry, researchers have developed an independent, evidence-based digital resource. Preliminary evaluations of this platform indicate that while the objective data may negatively impact the emotional state of patients, it significantly enhances their comprehension of the risks and limited evidentiary basis of optional IVF adjuncts.

機構回應則集中在知情同意與監管監督的必要性。澳洲與紐西蘭生育學會（FSANZ）主張將監管框架從州級轉為國家級，以降低推銷非核心服務相關的風險。為了解決資訊不對稱問題，研究人員開發了一個獨立的循證數位資源。對該平台的初步評估顯示，雖然客觀數據可能會對患者的情緒造成負面影響，但它顯著提升了患者對選擇性 IVF 輔助療法之風險及證據不足之處的理解。

Current evidence suggests that most IVF add-on therapies do not improve reproductive outcomes, prompting calls for stricter national regulation and improved patient education.

目前的證據顯示，大多數 IVF 附加治療無法改善生育結果，因此有人呼籲實施更嚴格的國家監管並改善患者教育。