Background: The quality of controlled trials is of obvious relevance to systematic reviews. If the ‘‘raw material’’ is flawed then the conclusions of systematic reviews (SR) cannot be trusted. Since in 1980’s the concern about study quality was first formally raised, many quality assessment instruments have been developed and employed in systematic reviews. Unfortunately, there is no gold standard instrument yet available. Objective: To identify the consistency among the three most popular quality assessment instruments and the suitability for rating acupuncture studies for migraine patients. Methods: Extensive electronic database searches were performed. The quality of included studies was assessed and extracted by two independent reviewers using 3 different instruments, namely Jadad scale, Internal Validity Scale (IVS) and Oxford Pain Validity Scale (OPVS). The Spearman rank correlation coefficient was used to assess correlations between the scores obtained with the different scales. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the relationship between scores of quality assessments and pooled odds ratios for frequency and intensity of migraine. Results: A data set of 32 randomized clinical trials (RCTs, including 15 studies published in English and 17 Chinese literatures) from a systematic review concerning the efficacy of acupuncture therapy in patients with migraine was used. None of all 17 involved Chinese studies presented good quality (more than 60% of maximum score) in any instruments. The English literatures showed moderate correlation between Jadad and IVS, but not with OPVS. Furthermore, the results of the systematic review (evaluating the effectiveness of acupuncture for migraine) were influenced by the scales used. Conclusion: Validity of Jadad and IVS for accessing acupuncture studies is questionable. A valid and reliable scale for the assessing the methodology quality of acupuncture trials needs to be developed.