Objective To evaluate traditional Chinese medicine（TCM） systematic review and meta-analysis publication bias in domestic Chinese journals.Methods Wanfang Database was searched for systematic reviews and meta-analysis published in the year of 2001-2004

2005-2007

2010

2014

and the first half of 2018.The treatment studies with TCM therapies as interventional measures were included

and the random sampling method according to time period was used to select 30

30

50

50

15 related literature respectively

and they were extracted and evaluated from funding information

conflict of interest

language limitation

searching of grey literature publication bias discussion and conclusion.Results The 175 paper in 5 time periods generally showed that the reports on funding sources and conflicts of interest gradually increased over time

with the funding source reporting rate rising from 20.0%（6/30） in the 2001-2004 period to 66.7%（10/15） in the first half of 2018;the conflict of interest reporting rate increased from 20.0%（6/30） to 46.7%（7/15）.The grey literature search reporting rate changed significantly from 30%（9/30） to 100%（15/15）.Only 57 papers（57/175

32.6%） in the 5 time periods reported language limitations.97 papers（97/175

55.43%） used statistical methods to detect publication bias

and 99 papers（99/175

56.6%） discussed publication bias.In a systematic review of meta-analytical primary outcomes

the proportion of negative or ambiguous conclusions（6%） in the undetected publication bias review was 1/4 of the ratio（25%） for a review of publication bias detection（24%）.Conclusion The TCM systematic review and meta-analysis published in domestic Chinese journals generally show that literature publication bias is not emphasized enough

while the review of publication bias gives more cautious positive conclusions

and the reporting in fund sources

conflicts of interest and grey literature search slightly improved over time.