ReviewJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2022
The efficacy of add-ons: selected IVF "add-on" procedures and future directions.
Review in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evidence-based interventions to restore or improve female fertility in women aged 30-42 years: a systematic review by etiology and evidence level.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Pooled it
- A multicentre double-blinded randomized controlled trial on the efficacy of laser-assisted hatching in patients with repeated implantation failure undergoing IVF or ICSI.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2023Trial
- Women's Perspectives on Adjunct Therapies in IVF: Key Considerations and Influences.The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology · 2026Article
- Reclaiming 'abnormal' embryos after preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy: patients' perspectives on transferring embryos against prior institutional advice.Human reproduction open · 2026Article
- Do Doctors Have a Responsibility to Challenge the Distorting Influence of Commerce on Healthcare Delivery? The Case of Assisted Reproductive Technology.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2025Article
- A Narrative Review on the Sperm Selection Methods in Assisted Reproductive Technology: Out with the New, the Old Is Better?Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Why the hypothesis of embryo selection in IVF/ICSI must finally be reconsidered.Human reproduction open · 2025Article
- Survey ofFrontiers in endocrinology · 2024Article
- Article
- Modern assessment of the uterine cavity and fallopian tubes in the era of high-efficacy assisted reproductive technology.Fertility and sterility · 2022Review
- Developmental perturbation in human embryos: Clinical and biological significance learned from time-lapse images.Reproductive medicine and biologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Since the advent of ART, technology has continuously evolved to improve embryology and pregnancy outcomes. However, not all technologies that are integrated into practice have convincing evidence of clinical effectiveness, and they often increase the financial burden of fertility care. We discuss here a selection of commonly utilized IVF "add-ons" and discuss the existing evidence for their utility. The procedures included in this review are time-lapse imaging of embryos, assisted hatching, EmbryoGlue, sperm DNA testing, egg activation with calcium ionophore, endometrial receptivity array, and physiological intracytoplasmic sperm injection (PICSI). While there is rather limited supporting evidence for nearly all IVF add-ons that we reviewed, there is strong demand from patients, physicians, and the biotechnology industry to continue further research and development in this arena. We propose that all add-on procedures should provide true efficacy for the patient, and reproductive endocrinologists should inform patients of the costs and benefits of utilizing various technologies before they undergo treatment. In the future, add-ons that show clear evidence of efficacy and justifiable cost should be incorporated into routine practice, while others that do not meet these criteria should be phased out entirely.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.