Background: Systematic review (SRs) on Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) have become increasingly popular in China and have been produced in large numbers. But the broad range of epidemiological characteristics, reporting detail and scientific validity of these systemactic review is unknown. Objective: Through examine these SRs in term of the broad range of epidemiological and reporting characteristics and scientific validity to identify the research status of these review on TCM current published in China Journals, and further improved and guide the development of SRs on TCM in China. Method: Four Chinese databases including Chinese Biomedicine Literature Database (CBM), Chinese Scientific Journal Full-text Database (CSJD), Chinese Journal Full-text Database (CJFD), and Wangfa Database were searched for SRs on TCM in the end of the Dec.2009. The search terms included systematic review , Meta-analysis , Traditional Chinese Medicine and Chinese herbs (Mesh or EMTREE). Data were collected using a Excel form designed to examine the epidemiological and reporting detail. AMSTAR checklist were used to appraise the scientific validity of these SRs. Results: In total 369 systematic reviews were identified, involving 146 dieseae, 20 herbs, 11 decoctions and 10 pills. All reviews were categorized as therapeutic. 49.8% (184) review were written by Clinicians, and nearly half (176 [47.7%]) reviews were reported in specialty journals. Fund sources were not reported in all reviews. Only one-third (120 [32.5%]) reviews were published in Chinese Science Citation Database (CSCD) cited by journals and the impact factor of nearly half (169 [45.80%]) reviews were zero. Information retrieval were not comprehensive in nearly half (166 [45.0%]) reviews. Most (224 [68.8%]) reviews reported information about quality assessment, while less half (161 [43.6%]) reviews reported assessing for publication bias. Statistic mistakes appeared in nearly one-third (108 [29.3%]) reviews. Most (339 [91.9%]) were not reported conflict interests. Though 97.6% reviews used the term systematic review or Meta analysis in the title, no any reviews were updated after they were published two or more years. Conclusion: Systematic reviews on TCM were published in large number in China Journals in recently years. Though the range of disease and chinese herbs were wide, the quality of these review were worrying. The information reported from these reviews were not comprehensive and even some were mistake. It did not only provide evidence for clinicians but also misleaded them.Hence, the most urgent and important thing is to improve the quality of SRs on TCM, not accelerate the quantity of SRs in China.