ObjectivesTo investigate the citation status of systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analyses in clinical practice guidelines and consensuses of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM).MethodsWe electronically searched PubMed, CBM, WanFang Data and CNKI databases to collect TCM guidelines and consensus from January 1st, 2009 to December 31st, 2018. Two reviewers independently screened literature and extracted data. Citation analysis method was used to analyze the citation status of SRs/meta-analysis in TCM guidelines and consensuses.ResultsA total of 142 TCM guidelines and consensuses were included, of which 39 (26.5%) failed to provide relevant citations. Of the 103 (72.5%) TCM guidelines and consensuses providing citations, 48 (34.3%) cited SRs/meta-analyses, and 43 cited outdated SRs/ meta-analyses. Four TCM guidelines and consensuses cited Cochrane reviews. In terms of citations, the average citations of guidelines and consensuses were 35.1 and 42.2, respectively; and the average SRs/meta-analyses citations of guidelines and consensuses were 3.8 and 5.5, respectively.ConclusionsTCM guidelines and consensuses citation report rates and the proportion of citation SRs/meta-analyses still require increase. TCM guidelines developers should strengthen the role and significance of SRs, especially Cochrane reviews, in supporting recommendations.