The quality of systematic reviews reported in English and in languages other than English was compared to determine whether or not there are differences between conventional medicine and CAM reports. Researchers used the Oxman and Guyatt scale to assess the quality of reporting in 130 systematic reviews: 50 were language-restricted, 32 were language-inclusive but contained only English-language trials and 48 were language-inclusive and included trials published in languages other than English. Of the 130 reviews, 105 addressed conventional medicine interventions and 25 addressed CAM interventions. Comparison of the systematic reviews showed that the quality of reporting and reporting characteristics are not affected by inclusion or exclusion of trials published in languages other than English; however, the quality of reporting of systematic reviews involving CAM interventions is higher than that of reviews focusing on conventional medicine interventions.