Li 2007.

Study characteristics
Methods	RCT, single centre, 90 participants, 3 years' duration
Participants	90 enrolled: CHM1 = 30, CHM2 = 30, control = 30, 21 to 38 years, baseline was comparable 87 analysed/evaluated: CHM1 = 29 (1 converted to IVF‐ET after CHM treatment for 1 month), CHM2 = 30, control = 28 (1 moved to another place, 1 discontinued therapy because of pelvic inflammation) Obesity: CHM1 = 7, CHM2 = 6, control = 6 Hirsutism: CHM1 = 19, CHM2 = 18, control = 21 LH/FSH > 2.5: CHM1 = 20, CHM2 = 19, control = 21 High testosterone: CHM1 = 16, CHM2 = 17, control = 15 Follicle number > 10: CHM1 = 25, CHM2 = 24, control = 22 Enlarged ovary: CHM1 = 5, CHM2 = 6, control = 7 PCOS DC: consistent with Rotterdam criteria (evaluated by review authors) In: PCOS and infertility Ex: using other drugs for ovulation induction, participants unable to follow‐up, tumour patients, adrenal diseases, other hyperandrogenic diseases
Interventions	CHM1: clomiphene simulacrum (5th to 9th day of menstrual cycle, 1 pill, once a day, 5 days), Lingzhu infusion (5th to 14th day of menstrual cycle, 1 bag, tid, 10 days), Shenqi capsule (from 14th day of menstrual cycle or after ovulation, 4 grains, tid, until menstrual onset or pregnancy or the 45th day of menstrual cycle), if amenorrhoea for 45 days then MPA would be prescribed (10 mg, once a day, 5 days) CHM2: clomiphene (5th to 9th day of menstrual cycle, 50 mg, once a day, 5 days), Lingzhu infusion, Shenqi capsule, and MPA Control: clomiphene, Lingzhu simulacrum, Shenqi simulacrum, and MPA Duration: treated no more than 6 menstrual cycles, follow‐up time was unclear.
Outcomes	LH, testosterone, LH/FSH, estradiol, insulin, BMI, cervical mucus Pregnancy rate (per woman) Ovulation rate (per cycle)
Notes	Clomiphene: Codal Synto Ltd. batch number: H20020325 Lingzhu infusion: hospital preparation, batch number Z03020211, 6 g/bag Shenqi capsule: hospital preparation, batch number Z03020212, 0.5 g/pill
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	The study reported random method without the details. We were unable to contact the study authors for more information.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	We were unable to contact the study authors for more information.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	The study used mimic drugs. Participants and the outcome assessor were blinded
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	The study used mimic drugs. Participants and the outcome assessor were blinded.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	No intention‐to‐treat (ITT) analysis. The analysis rate was 96.7% (87/90).
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	The study protocol was unavailable.
Other bias	Low risk	No other potential risk of bias identified