Objective To assess the safety and effectiveness of direct stenting (DS) versus conventional stenting (CS) with predilation in clinical practice. Methods Such databases as PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2011), CBM, VIP and CNKI were searched from the date of their establishment to April 2011, to collect the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on DS vs. CS. The quality of RCTs was critically appraised, and the data were extracted and cross-checked by two reviewers independently. Meta-analyses were conducted using RevMan 5.0 software. Results A total of 24 RCTs involving 6 666 patients were included. The results of Meta-analyses showed that DS took shorter operative time compared with CS (MD=–3.36, 95%CI –4.41 to –2.30, Plt;0.000 01) with acute gain (luminal diameter) during operation (MD=–0.01, 95%CI –0.04 to 0.02, P=0.64). But there were no significant differences in the incidence of major adverse cardiac events during six-month follow-up (OR=0.89, 95%CI 0.69 to 1.14, P=0.35) and restenosis (OR=1.02, 95%CI 0.82 to 1.26, P=0.88). Conclusion Current evidence shows that DS is not superior to CS. This conclusion still needs to be further proved by well-designed and large scale RCTs with longer follow-up duration.