Objective:sTo systematically evaluate the clinical efficacy of integrated traditional Chinese and western medicine in the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (hereinafter referred to as “COVID-19”). MethodsData were collected by searching Wanfang DATA, CNKI, MEDLINE and Embase databases from the creation date of these databases to March 12,2020. The risk of bias was assessed according to the Cochrane Manual “Risk of Bias” assessment tool. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to evaluate the methodological quality of non-random trials, and the quality of evidence was measured by GRADE. Review Manager 5.3 software was used for meta-analysis on the outcome indexes of different intervention measures in the treatment of COVID-19, and comparison of the clinical effects between the treatment group (integrated treatment of traditional Chinese and western medicine) and the control group (conventional western medicine treatment).  Results:①A total of 8 clinical studies were included, containing 804 cases. ②One of the studies was a randomized controlled trial, four were retrospective cohort studies, one was before-after study in the same patient, and two were case series studies. Five studies were included in meta-analysis, and three studies without control group were only evaluated by NOS. ③The conversion rate of severe cases was compared and analyzed in two studies. The results showed that the conversion rate of severe cases in the treatment group was lower than that in the control group [RR=0.18,95% CI(0.04,0.79), P=0.02]. ④The clinical cure rate was compared and analyzed in three studies. The results showed that the clinical cure rate of the treatment group was higher than that of the control group [OR=7. 82,95% CI(2.04,30.06), P=0.003]. ⑤The mortality rate was analyzed in two studies. The results showed that there was no significant difference between the two groups [RR=0.18, 95% CI(0.01,4.23), P=0.29], and no heterogeneity conclusion could be drawn. ⑥The fever duration was compared and analyzed in four studies, and there were obvious heterogeneity among the studies (P=0.003, I2=84%). The results suggested that the antipyretic effect of the treatment group was better than that of the control group [MD=-0.81,95% CI(-1.53, -0.09), P=0.03], but the further analysis on the sources of heterogeneity was required. ⑦The symptom scores were compared and analyzed in two studies. The results showed that the clinical symptoms of the patients were better improved in the treatment group than in the control group [SMD=-0.84,95% CI(-1.25, -0.43), P<0.000 1]. ⑧The remission rate of cough was compared and analyzed in three studies. The results showed that the cough symptom was better relieved in the treatment group than in the control group [OR=5. 14,95% CI(1.49,17.75), P=0.010]. ⑨The remission rate of diarrhea was compared and analyzed in three studies. The results showed that there was no significant difference between the two groups [OR=1. 19,95% CI(0.17,8.64), P=0.86]. ⑩The absorption rate of pneumonia was compared and analyzed in three studies. The results showed that there was no significant difference between the two groups [RR=1.02,95% CI(0.85,1.22), P=0.87].  Conclusion:The integrated treatment of traditional Chinese and western medicine can reduce the conversion rate of severe cases, improve the clinical cure rate, and has certain advantages in relieving cough and fever among patients with COVID-19. In order to improve the evidence integrity of this study, more high-quality clinical evidence-based studies are needed for data update.