Background: The abstract of journal article may be the only way for people of non-Chinese speaking countries to know about trials in traditional Chinese medicine (TCM). However, little is known about the reporting quality of these trial abstracts. Objective: To assess the reporting quality of abstracts of randomized controlled trials (RCT) published in four Chinese TCM journals; to identify any differences in reporting between the Chinese and English version of the same abstract. Method: Two reviewers hand-searched the Chinese Journal of Integrated Traditional and Western Medicine, the Chinese Journal of Integrative Medicine, the China Journal of Chinese Materia Medica and the Chinese Acupuncture & Moxibustion for all abstracts of RCTs published between 2006 and 2007. Two reviewers independently assessed the reporting quality of all eligible abstracts based on the CONSORT extension for reporting abstracts of RCT. Results: We identified 345 RCTs with both a Chinese and English abstract. More than half of Chinese abstracts reported details of the trial participants (68%; 234/345), control group intervention (52%; 179/345), the number of participants randomized (73%; 253/345) and benefits when interpreting the trial results (55%; 190/345). Reporting of methodological quality and trial results were poor; only 2% (7/345) included details of the trial design, 3% (11/345) defined the primary outcome, 5% (17/345) described the methods of random sequence generation, and only 4% (13/345) reported the number of participants analyzed. No abstracts provided details on allocation concealment and trial registration. The percentage agreement in reporting the Chinese and English version of the same abstract ranged from 84% to 100% across individual checklist item. Conclusion: The reporting quality of abstracts of RCTs published in these four TCM journals needs to be improved.