Objective To assess the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews/Meta-analyses of literature on cerebral hemorrhage published in China and learn about the current research status in this field, and to investigate the factors that influence the quality and provide related suggestions.Methods A computer search was performed through CBM, CNKI, Wanfang Data Healthcare Department, and VIP database to retrieve all systematic reviews/Meta-analyses of literature on cerebral hemorrhage published in China from inception to July 20, 2013. Two reviewers independently screened the articles for eligibility and extracted data from the eligible ones. Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used to evaluate the methodological and reporting quality, respectively. The results were confirmed by cross-checking and disagreements were discussed by a third reviewer. Statistical analysis of data was performed using Excel 2003.Results Of the 41 systematic reviews/Meta-analyses included in this study, 43.9% had not been cited by other researchers in the same field of study, and 41.5% were cited 1-5 times; 19.5% reported funding sources or conflict of interest, 0.0% provided preliminary design scheme, 2.4% mentioned grey literature, and 12.2% implemented a comprehensive literature search. The mean AMSTAR score was 5.2±1.6 (total score 11), while the mean PRISMA score was 15.2±3.7 (total score 27).Conclusions Many systematic reviews/Meta-analyses of literature on cerebral hemorrhage have been published in China; however, the methodological and reporting quality is still low. Thus, journal editors and authors should evaluate and write systematic reviews/Meta-analyses according to the AMSTAR and PRISMA guidelines.