ObjectiveTo systematically review methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses of interventions in the global research field on gliomas. MethodsDatabases including PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CNKI and CBM were searched from inception to July 2013, for systematic reviews/meta-analyses of interventions in the research field on gliomas. Two reviewers independently screened literature. Then PRISMA and AMSTAR checklists were used to assess and analysis methodological and reporting quality of included studies. ResultsA total of 51 systematic reviews or meta-analyses were identified. The results showed that the weakness of methodological quality mainly contained lack of study design, incomprehensive of literature search, limited form of included publications, lack of assessing publication bias, lack of reporting of conflict of interest. The weakness of reporting quality included incomplete reporting of literature search, quality assessment, risk of bias and results (some studies lacked forest plots, estimated value of pooled results, 95%CI, and heterogeneity). ConclusionThere are problems at different levels regarding current methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses of interventions in the global research field on gliomas. The relevant researchers should improve the scientificity and standardization of systematic reviews/meta-analyses and report them according to the PRISMA statement.