Objective To systematically assess the measurement property and methodological quality of the traditional Chinese medicine（TCM） clinical effectiveness evaluation scales for coronary heart disease（CHD）. Methods Databases including CNKI

Wanfang

VIP

PubMed

Embase and OVID were searched from the inception date till November 1 st

2019. Studies on TCM clinical effectiveness evaluation scales for CHD were included; the measurement property standards and the consensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement instruments（COSMIN） were used to evaluate the measurement performance and the methodological quality respectively. Results Eight scales involving 14 studies of 17 papers were included

which were TCM syndrome evaluation scale of phlegm and blood stasis syndrome in CHD with stable angina pectoris（TCMsys）

self-evaluation scale of CHD stable angina with the syndrome of phlegm and blood stasis（CHD-SF）

efficacy evaluation scale for CHD angina pectoris with syndrome of blood stasis（CHD-XY）

effectiveness evaluation scale of TCM pattens for CHD angina pectoris（CHD-TCM）

rating scale for patients reported outcomes of CHD angina（CHD-PRO）

quality of life scale with TCM characteristics for coronary artery disease（CAD）（CAD-QOL）

symptoms scale for evaluating efficacy of coronary angina pectoris with Qi deficiency and blood stagnation（CHD-QX）

quality of life scale of integration of TCM and western medicine for CHD（CHD-QOL）. In terms of measurement property

the theoretical framework and the items development of eight scales meet the content validity requirements

and the responsiveness was at average level or above. The internal consistency

criterion validity

and construct validity were assessed as poor or not mentioned in all the scales except for CHD-QOL. Explanatory evaluation was not mentioned in five scales. Consistency and ceiling and floor effect of reproducibility evaluation were not mentioned in all scales. The methodological quality of the scale-related studies was generally poor

of which the quality of CHD-SF was the best

followed by CHD-QOL. Conclusion The measurement property of the current TCM clinical effectiveness evaluation scales for CHD is not comprehensive

and the overall methodological quality was poor. CHD-QOL is temporarily recommended as the measurement tool for clinical control studies and longitudinal researches on CHD

as its measurement property and methodological quality are relatively acceptable.