Objective To discover the similarities and differences between CBM and MEDLINE databases in the field of post-earthquake health issue research characteristics in order to provide references and aids to the scientific research administration, professional education and training, research subjects selection and project finance support. Methods CBM and MEDLINE databases (from January 1987 to December 2009) were systematically searched to obtain literature about post-earthquake health issues. Those studies were classified and compared by the characteristics of research objects, health issues, research periods, and types of study design. Results A total of 701 literature from CBM and 387 from MEDLINE were included. MEDLINE database provided more studies focusing on victims of natural calamities with specific age description than CBM (Plt;0.05). Research peak of CBM database centralized in the period of three months after earthquake (n=645, 92%), while MEDLINE was three years after the earthquake (n=191, 87.2%). Studies from both databases similarly focused on physical trauma and psychiatric/psychological issues (two types of health issues in total: CBM: n=727, 86.1%; MEDLINE: n=358, 83.4%). Investigations from CBM were primarily designed for retrospective and descriptive research (n=439, 62.6%), cross-sectional investigations (n=146, 20.8%) and case report (n=86, 12.3%) while MEDLINE focalized on cross-sectional investigations (n=177, 45.7%) and retrospective and descriptive research (n=146, 37.7%). Conclusion Compared to MEDLINE, studies from CBM database are relatively weak in the post-earthquake health issues of population with specific age characters, long-term health issues, levels of evidence and types of research design. The possible reasons are insufficient attention to the post-earthquake health issues, inadequate preparation for the research or limited knowledge about research methods.