Abstract: Objective To overview the systematic review（SR） of antihypertensive Chinese patent medicines in the treatment of essential hypertension. Methods Firstly, the databases of CNKI（China national knowledge infrastructure）, Chinese biomedical literature, Wanfang, VIP, PubMed, EMBASE, web of science, Cochrane Library were searched to identify the SR/meta-analysis of antihypertensive Chinese patent medicine on the medical insurance catalog of 2020. The retrieval period was from the establishment of the database to July 2020. Secondly, the basic characteristics and meta-analysis results of included studies were qualitatively synthesized, and the scattered meta-analyses with a small number of included studies were also quantitatively synthesized. PRISMA（preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses） statement, AMSTAR-2（a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews-2） tool and GRADE（grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation） rating software were used to evaluate the reporting quality, methodological quality and evidence quality of included SR.Results A total of 28 SR, with 21 Chinese patent medicines and 22 outcome indicators were included. The Chinese patent medicines with the most SR were Songling Xuemaikang and Yangxueqingnao Granules. The original studies included in the SR were all randomized controlled trials. The experimental methods included supplementary therapy（the test group adopted Chinese patent medicine combined with the control drugs） and the alternative therapy（the test group used Chinese patent medicines alone）, the ratio of the two studies was 4∶1. The controls were conventional antihypertensive chemical drugs. There was no significant difference in the antihypertensive effect between Chinese patent medicine replacement therapy and chemical medicine therapy in 19 out of 22 meta-analyses（6 Chinese patent medicines）. The antihypertensive effect of supplementary therapy was better than that of chemical medicine therapy in 70 out of 78 meta-analyses（17 Chinese patent medicines）. The results of 36 meta-analyses showed that systolic blood pressure decreased by 6.17-15.21 mm Hg on average, and 34 meta-analyses showed diastolic blood pressure decreased by 2.28-14.16 mm Hg. There were no significant differences in adverse effects between the chemical medicine and Chinese patent medicine, or the Chinese patent medicine had fewer adverse reactions. Overall, the quality of SR reports and methodology published in recent years were better than those in earlier years, and the common problems were mostly reflected in the content of methodology. The level of evidence of SR outcome indicators was "low" and "very low". Conclusions There is insufficient evidence for Chinese patent medicine as an alternative therapy to reduce blood pressure, while there is more evidence as a complementary therapy. Due to the poor methodological quality of studies included in SR, the overall level of evidence is low. The holistic view of traditional Chinese medicines and the treatment based on syndrome differentiation are not fully reflected in the experimental design. Clinicians should carefully screen these evidence when making clinical decision.