Objective To evaluate the efficacy and the adverse reactions of intensive therapy compared with conventional therapy. Methods We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 3, 2008), MEDLINE (January 1980 to June 2008), EMbase (1984 to June 2008), CBM-disc (January 1980 to June 2008) and CNKI (1994 to June 2008) to get all the randomized control trials (RCTs) about paclitaxel intensive versus conventional therapy for ovarian cancer. We used RevMan 5 to perform meta-analysis. Results Six RCTs involving 572 patients were included. Metaanalysis showed the efficacy of intensive therapy and conventional therapy was similar. There were no significant differences in response rate (RR 1.06, 95%CI 0.94 to 1.20), median survival time, survival rate, median progression free survival and median time to progression between the two groups. When taking safety into consideration, intensive therapy significantly reduced the occurrence of grade Ⅲ or higher neutropenia (RR 0.49, 95%CI 0.35 to 0.69, Plt;0.000 1) and Grade Ⅲ or higher neuropathy (RR 0.43, 95%CI 0.24 to 0.78, P=0.006). But there were no significant differences between intensive therapy and conventional therapy in flush, grade Ⅲ or higher vomiting, anemia, leucopenia, grade Ⅲ or higher thrombocytopenia and alopecia. Conclusion Paclitaxel intensive therapy has similar efficacy and adverse reactions compared with conventional therapy in ovarian cancer. Above all, intensive therapy can reduce the incidence of grade Ⅲ or higher neutropenia and neuropathy. It is a good substitution for the conventional therapy.