Background: In a 2001 BMJ article Olsen et al. found that Cochrane reviews were rated of a higher quality than non-Cochrane reviews. This study was limited to a sample from 1998. No comprehensive assessment of HIV/AIDS systematic reviews exists. In our study, we aim to describe the focus and appraise the quality of systematic reviews in the HIV/AIDS field. Objectives: (1) To identify and describe the characteristics of published HIV/AIDS systematic reviews; (2) to compare Cochrane with non-Cochrane reviews with respect to these characteristics; and (3) to compare the methodological quality of Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews. Methods: The Cochrane HIV/AIDS sensitive search strategy was combined with the Montori search filter to identify systematic reviews. We searched PubMed, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library in February 2008. Systematic reviews, with or without meta-analyses, and evaluating either a HIV/AIDS prevention or treatment intervention were included. Two independent researchers assessed eligibility by screening titles and abstracts. We excluded reviews evaluating animal or in vitro studies, and reviews of disease aetiology, diagnosis, and prognosis. Reviews were classified by publication year, intervention type, and Cochrane status. Dual publication of Cochrane reviews was recorded. We will assess methodological quality using a critical appraisal tool based on the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) used for a similar study by the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Review Group. Results: Searching PubMed yielded 2419 records, EMBASE yielded 3573 records. From PubMed, we identified 283 systematic reviews of which 136 (48%) were HIV reviews and from EMBASE there were 131 systematic reviews with 95 (73%) HIV reviews. We are currently reviewing the individual reviews retrieved. From The Cochrane Library, we retrieved 44 reviews produced by the Cochrane HIV/AIDS Review Group. Conclusions: This study will provide insight into the quality and methodology used in the evidence for the treatment and prevention and HIV and will add to the research base on Cochrane review quality.