Acta Obstetricia Et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 61(4), 377-379, 1982
Abstract
The effectiveness of tamoxifen and clomiphene in inducing ovulation was compared in 46 women with anovulatory infertility. All the women were given both the drugs in an alternate way. If one cycle was treated by tamoxifen the next was treated by clomiphene and vice versa. Forty-one out of the 46 women (89.1%) ovulated at least once during the study. Similar ovulation rates were achieved by tamoxifen (56.2%) and clomiphene (62.9%). The lengths of the ovulatory cycles and their luteal phases and the mid-luteal phase serum progesterone levels did not differ significantly between the two compounds. Nor did the occurrence of luteal phase defects during the tamoxifen and clomiphene treatment cycles differ. Thirty-seven of the 46 women (80.4%) responded similarly to both drugs. Thus, tamoxifen is just as effective as clomiphene in inducing ovulation in women with anovulation.
Topics
tamoxifen versus clomiphene ovulation induction comparison, tamoxifen anovulatory infertility ovulation rate, clomiphene tamoxifen crossover study anovulation treatment, Messinis Nillius tamoxifen clomiphene ovulation, anti-estrogen ovulation induction effectiveness comparison, luteal phase defect tamoxifen clomiphene treatment, mid-luteal progesterone levels ovulation induction drugs, anovulatory infertility selective estrogen receptor modulator, tamoxifen alternative clomiphene citrate ovulation induction, ovulatory cycle length luteal phase adequacy clomiphene tamoxifen
Messinis et al. 1982, Messinis 1982
Cite this article
Messinis, I. E., & Nillius, S. J. (1982). Comparison between tamoxifen and clomiphene for induction of ovulation. Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica, 61(4), 377-379.
Messinis IE, Nillius SJ. Comparison between tamoxifen and clomiphene for induction of ovulation. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1982;61(4):377-379.
Messinis, Ioannis E., and Sven Johan Nillius. "Comparison between tamoxifen and clomiphene for induction of ovulation." Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica, vol. 61, no. 4, 1982, pp. 377-379.
Keywords
Adolescent, Adult, Clomiphene/pharmacology, Female, Humans, Infertility, Female/drug Therapy, Menstruation/drug Effects, Ovulation Induction, Pregnancy, Tamoxifen/pharmacology, Tamoxifen, Clomiphene
Related articles
therapeutics/ovulation-agents/selective-estrogen-receptor-modulators menstrual-cycle/cycle-disorders/ovulatory-disturbancesinfertility/ovulation-induction/clomiphene-citrate
Low-dosage clomiphene therapy in the treatment of infertility due to defective ovulation
Barrett CT et al., 1974 · S Afr Med J
The use of clomiphene in gradually increasing doses, in cases of infertility due to anovulation, oligo-ovulation and inadequate luteal phase, led to a high pregnancy rate, particularly in the initial stages of treatment. Although clomiphene is a relatively safe and inexpensive drug, there is a possibility that high doses in repeated cycles may adversely affect fertility by its anti-oestrogenic effect. It is therefore suggested that therapy be commenced with a lower dosage than that generally recommended.
reproductive-endocrinology/ovulation-physiology/anovulation therapeutics/ovulation-agents/selective-estrogen-receptor-modulatorsmenstrual-cycle/cycle-disorders/ovulatory-disturbances
N-Acetyl cysteine and clomiphene citrate for induction of ovulation in polycystic ovary syndrome: a cross-over trial
Badawy A et al., 2007 · Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand
To compare clomiphene citrate plus N-acetyl cysteine versus clomiphene citrate for inducing ovulation in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome. Prospective cross-over trial. University teaching hospital and a private practice setting. Five hundred and seventy-three patients were treated with clomiphene citrate for one menstrual cycle among which 470 patients were treated with clomiphene citrate plus N-acetyl cysteine for another cycle. All women suffered from polycystic ovary syndrome. Patients had clomiphene citrate 50-mg tablets twice daily alone or with N-acetyl cysteine 1,200 mg/day orally for 5 days starting on day 3 of the menstrual cycle. Primary outcomes were number of mature follicles, serum E2, serum progesterone, and endometrial thickness. Secondary outcome was the occurrence of pregnancy. Ovulation rate improved significantly after the addition of N-acetyl cysteine (17.9% versus 52.1%). Although the number of mature follicles was more in the N-acetyl cysteine group (2.1+/-0.88 versus 3.2+/-0.93), the difference was not statistically significant. The mean E2 levels (pg/ml) at the time of human chorionic gonadotropine injection, serum progesterone levels (ng/ml) on days 21-23 of the cycle, and the endometrial thickness were significantly improved in the N-acetyl cysteine group. The overall pregnancy rate was 11.5% in the N-acetyl cysteine group. Insulin resistance occurred in 260 patients (55.4%). There was no significant difference between the insulin resistance group (n = 260) and non-insulin resistance group (n = 210) as regards ovulation rate, number of follicles, serum E2 (pg/ml), serum progesterone (ng/ml), endometrial thickness (mm), or pregnancy rate. N-Acetyl cysteine is proved effective in inducing or augmenting ovulation in polycystic ovary patients.
reproductive-endocrinology/ovulation-physiology/anovulation therapeutics/ovulation-agents/selective-estrogen-receptor-modulatorsinfertility/ovulation-induction/clomiphene-citrate
Stair-step versus traditional clomiphene citrate protocols in polycystic ovary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Reimão Miller KA et al., 2026 · Reproductive biomedicine online
This review explores whether the clomiphene citrate stair-step protocol (SSP) for ovulation induction in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) outperforms the traditional protocol. The following databases were searched: PubMed, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, EMBASE and Google Scholar from inception to 15 June 2025, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and with PROSPERO registration (CRD420251050294). Of 847 screened records, five randomized controlled trials were included (n = 520: n = 255; traditional protocol: n = 265). Analyses were conducted in Review Manager 5.4 using random-effects models. Risk ratios, mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Heterogeneity was assessed with I², risk of bias with RoB2, certainty with GRADE and robustness with leave-one-out sensitivity analysis. The SSP increased ovulation rates compared with the traditional protocol (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.49; five randomized controlled trials [RCTs], n = 520, I² = 0%). Clinical pregnancy also favoured SSP (RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.05; four RCTs, n = 460; I² = 0%), although this result was largely driven by one study. The SSP shortened treatment duration (mean difference -32.59 days, 95% CI -38.66 to -26.52 days; three RCTs, n = 320, I² = 83%). Endometrial thickness was similar (mean difference 0.32 mm, 95% CI -0.95 to 1.59 mm; four RCTs, n = 460, I² = 91%). SSP improves ovulation rate and shortens treatment without affecting endometrial thickness and may increase clinical pregnancy rates.
reproductive-surgery/ovarian-surgery/ovarian-reserve-preservation infertility/ovulation-induction/clomiphene-citratemenstrual-cycle/cycle-disorders/ovulatory-disturbances
Laparoscopic ovarian drilling for ovulation induction in women with anovulatory polycystic ovary syndrome
Bordewijk EM et al., 2020 · The Cochrane database of systematic reviews
Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a common condition affecting 8% to 13% of reproductive-aged women. In the past clomiphene citrate (CC) used to be the first-line treatment in women with PCOS. Ovulation induction with letrozole should be the first-line treatment according to new guidelines, but the use of letrozole is off-label. Consequently, CC is still commonly used. Approximately 20% of women on CC do not ovulate. Women who are CC-resistant can be treated with gonadotrophins or other medical ovulation-induction agents. These medications are not always successful, can be time-consuming and can cause adverse events like multiple pregnancies and cycle cancellation due to an excessive response. Laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD) is a surgical alternative to medical treatment. There are risks associated with surgery, such as complications from anaesthesia, infection, and adhesions. To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of LOD with or without medical ovulation induction compared with medical ovulation induction alone for women with anovulatory polycystic PCOS and CC-resistance. We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGFG) trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and two trials registers up to 8 October 2019, together with reference checking and contact with study authors and experts in the field to identify additional studies. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of women with anovulatory PCOS and CC resistance who underwent LOD with or without medical ovulation induction versus medical ovulation induction alone, LOD with assisted reproductive technologies (ART) versus ART, LOD with second-look laparoscopy versus expectant management, or different techniques of LOD. Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risks of bias, extracted data and evaluated the quality of the evidence using the GRADE method. The primary effectiveness outcome was live birth and the primary safety outcome was multiple pregnancy. Pregnancy, miscarriage, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), ovulation, costs, and quality of life were secondary outcomes. This updated review includes 38 trials (3326 women). The evidence was very low- to moderate-quality; the main limitations were due to poor reporting of study methods, with downgrading for risks of bias (randomisation and allocation concealment) and lack of blinding. Laparoscopic ovarian drilling with or without medical ovulation induction versus medical ovulation induction alone Pooled results suggest LOD may decrease live birth slightly when compared with medical ovulation induction alone (odds ratio (OR) 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 0.92; 9 studies, 1015 women; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). The evidence suggest that if the chance of live birth following medical ovulation induction alone is 42%, the chance following LOD would be between 28% and 40%. The sensitivity analysis restricted to only RCTs with low risk of selection bias suggested there is uncertainty whether there is a difference between the treatments (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.36; 4 studies, 415 women; I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence). LOD probably reduces multiple pregnancy rates (Peto OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.66; 14 studies, 1161 women; I2 = 2%; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that if we assume the risk of multiple pregnancy following medical ovulation induction is 5.0%, the risk following LOD would be between 0.9% and 3.4%. Restricting to RCTs that followed women for six months after LOD and six cycles of ovulation induction only, the results for live birth were consistent with the main analysis. There may be little or no difference between the treatments for the likelihood of a clinical pregnancy (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.03; 21 studies, 2016 women; I2 = 19%; low-quality evidence). There is uncertainty about the effect of LOD compared with ovulation induction alone on miscarriage (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.59; 19 studies, 1909 women; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). OHSS was a very rare event. LOD may reduce OHSS (Peto OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.91; 8 studies, 722 women; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). Unilateral LOD versus bilateral LOD Due to the small sample size, the quality of evidence is insufficient to justify a conclusion on live birth (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.78; 1 study, 44 women; very low-quality evidence). There were no data available on multiple pregnancy. The likelihood of a clinical pregnancy is uncertain between the treatments, due to the quality of the evidence and the large heterogeneity between the studies (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.84; 7 studies, 470 women; I2 = 60%, very low-quality evidence). Due to the small sample size, the quality of evidence is not sufficient to justify a conclusion on miscarriage (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.31 to 3.33; 2 studies, 131 women; I2 = 0%; very low-quality evidence). Other comparisons Due to lack of evidence and very low-quality data there is uncertainty whether there is a difference for any of the following comparisons: LOD with IVF versus IVF, LOD with second-look laparoscopy versus expectant management, monopolar versus bipolar LOD, and adjusted thermal dose versus fixed thermal dose. AUTHORS' Laparoscopic ovarian drilling with and without medical ovulation induction may decrease the live birth rate in women with anovulatory PCOS and CC resistance compared with medical ovulation induction alone. But the sensitivity analysis restricted to only RCTs at low risk of selection bias suggests there is uncertainty whether there is a difference between the treatments, due to uncertainty around the estimate. Moderate-quality evidence shows that LOD probably reduces the number of multiple pregnancy. Low-quality evidence suggests that there may be little or no difference between the treatments for the likelihood of a clinical pregnancy, and there is uncertainty about the effect of LOD compared with ovulation induction alone on miscarriage. LOD may result in less OHSS. The quality of evidence is insufficient to justify a conclusion on live birth, clinical pregnancy or miscarriage rate for the analysis of unilateral LOD versus bilateral LOD. There were no data available on multiple pregnancy.