Objective To assess the quality of published systematic reviews and meta-analyses on Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) published in Chinese journals. Methods We searched CNKI, CMB from January 1995 to December 2006 and The Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 2006) for systematic reviews and meta-analyses on TCM. We extracted details of the interventions used in the treatment and control groups, analyzed the validity of included studies and investigated whether the reports used QUOROM statement or not. Results We identified 111 reports, of which 1 on prevention, 1 on adverse events, 1 on risk factors and premonitory symptoms, 2 on physiochemical parameters, and 106 on effectiveness and safety assessment. In total, 42 types of diseases were involved, and 41 reports were related to cerebrovascular diseases. As for the investigated interventions, 25 studies assessed TCM and 12 assessed acupuncture. Two had no control intervention design control in the group, 15 did not describe the interventions in the control group, 50 used active control (26 for western medicine, 12 for Chinese medicine, 12 for western plus Chinese medicine), 14 used blank control, 17 used baseline control, 4 used sham acupuncture or acupoint injection control etc., 5 used placebo control and 4 used "mutual control". The interventions used in the treatment and control groups varied widely. The number of trials included in the reviews and meta-analyses ranged from 1 to 35, and 24 studies included non-randomized controlled trials. Of the 111 reports, 14 were Cochrane reviews, 16 did not assess the quality of included randomized trials and a further 22 performed only simple and nonstandard quality assessment of the included trials. None of the reviews or meta-analyses used the QUOROM statement to report their results. Conclusions Because of the unique characteristics of TCM, systematic reviews of TCM should focus on a specific topic, avoid the selection of too many drugs, address the target indications of the test drugs and pay attention on intervention evaluation. High quality systematic reviews of TCM are needed but they will only be produced through the concerted efforts of clinicians, TCM practitioners and methodologists.