To assess the methodological, reporting and evidence quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of total glucosides of paeony (TGP) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We comprehensively searched the literature in numerous databases from inception to July 29th, 2020. Two appraisers collected data and assessed the methodological and reporting quality of the included reviews by revised A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) tool and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA), respectively. The level of evidence quality was evaluated by employing the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) scale. Eleven relevant articles were collected. The results from AMSTAR-2 showed that the methodological quality of all included reviews was critically low; no authors met the standard of those critical domains (0%), particularly in item 2, item 4 and item 7. The PRISMA scores ranged from 16.5 to 25, and one meta-analysis almost conformed to the PRISMA structure. According to GRADE, the 11 studies included 59 outcomes: 27 had very low quality, 22 had low quality, 10 had moderate quality, and none had high quality evidence. The most prominent downgrading factors were risk of bias, followed by publication bias, inconsistency, imprecision, and indirectness. Although included studies summarized that TGP was effective and safe in the treatment of RA, the methodological and reporting quality and the quality of evidence was poor overall; decision-makers should be prudent when using TGP in treating RA patients. High-quality and multicenter studies investigating TGP for RA are urgently needed. Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.