Objective To systematically review the methodological quality of research on clinical prediction models of traditional Chinese medicine. Methods The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CNKI, WanFang Data, VIP and SinoMed databases were electronically searched to collect literature related to the research on clinical prediction models of traditional Chinese medicine from inception to March 31, 2023. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies based on prediction model risk of bias assessment tool (PROBAST). Results A total of 113 studies on clinical prediction models of traditional Chinese medicine (79 diagnostic model studies and 34 prognostic model studies) were included. Among them, 111 (98.2%) studies were rated at high risk of bias, while 1 (0.9%) study was rated at low risk of bias and risk of bias of 1 (0.9%) study was unclear. The analysis domain was rated with the highest proportion of high risk of bias, followed by the participants domain. Due to the widespread lack of reporting of specific study information, risk of bias of a large number of studies was unclear in both predictors and outcome domain. Conclusion Most existing researches on clinical prediction models of traditional Chinese medicine show poor methodological quality and are at high risk of bias. Factors contributing to risk of bias include non-prospective data source, outcome definitions that include predictors, inadequate modeling sample size, inappropriate feature selection, inaccurate performance evaluation, and incorrect internal validation methods. Comprehensive methodological improvements on design, conduct, evaluation, and validation of modeling, as well as reporting of all key information of the models are urgently needed for future modeling studies, aiming to facilitate their translational application in medical practice.