Objective Through assessing the quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses conducted by hospital pharmacists in China, to learn relevant situations and to promote the development and application of evidence-based pharmacy in hospital. Methods The following databases such as CBM, CNKI, Wanfang Database, VIP, CMCI, The Cochrane Library, EMbase and PubMed were searched from the establishment date to April 15th, 2011, to collect all published systematic reviews/meta-analyses conducted by hospital pharmacists in China. Two reviewers independently extracted the published information according to the inclusive and exclusive criteria, and assessed the methodology and reporting quality of the included literatures with OQAQ and PRISMA. Disagreements were discussed or resolved by the third reviewer. Data analysis was conducted by using SPSS17.0 software. Results Two hundred and sixteen Chinese literatures (including 40 on traditional Chinese medicine), and 15 English literatures were identified. The number of literatures has increased rapidly since 2008. Beijing and Sichuan were the top 2 districts in the number of literatures. All of the included literatures were published in 62 magazines sponsored by 87 hospitals, such as China Pharmacy, and Chinese Journey of Evidence-Based Medicine. The total downloads of Chinese literatures were 14346, and the total citations of all literatures were 154. The methodology and reporting quality of the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involved in 220 systematic reviews/meta-analyses literatures were assessed, which showed the highest and lowest scores of methodological quality were 6 and 3, respectively, and the average score was 4.27±0.55. The highest and lowest scores of reporting quality were 22.5 and 9, respectively, and the average score was 16.49±2.98. Conclusion Although the evidence-based pharmacy in hospital begins late in China, it develops rapidly, and offers lots of evidence to policy decision, guidelines and rational drug use. However, there is still room for improvement of the methodology and reporting quality in future reviews.