Abstract: ObjectiveAnalyzing the characteristics and methodological quality of systematic reviews on clinical practice guidelines for traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) provides a reference for their scientific development.MethodsSystematic reviews that evaluated TCM clinical practice guidelines using assessment tools,published from January 2016 to July 2025,were retrieved from the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI),VIP Chinese Journal Service Platform,WANFANG DATA,China Biomedical Literature Database (CBM),and PubMed.The adjusted AMSTAR 2 tool was used to assess methodological quality,while frequency statistics and chi-square (χ²) tests were applied to analyze the characteristics of the included systematic reviews.ResultsSeventy studies were included.Over the past decade,the number of systematic reviews on TCM guidelines showed fluctuating growth,peaking in 2024(n=14,20.00%).Most authors were from China (n=68,97.14%),with publications primarily appearing in Peking University core journals (n=36,51.43%) and SCI journals (n=13,18.57%).The majority of studies focused on disease-oriented topics (n=44,62.86%),with methodological quality assessment being the predominant study type (n=51,72.86%).Most publications lacked registration information,and Chinese journals exhibited insufficient reporting of conflicts of interest.ConclusionsSystematic reviews of TCM clinical practice guidelines have garnered significant academic and policy attention,demonstrating rapid development.However,challenges persist,including insufficient TCM-specific evaluation tools and gaps in registration and conflict‑of‑interest disclosure.Future efforts should establish standardized reporting guidelines for TCM guideline systematic reviews to enhance scientific rigor and consistency.