Objective To assess the efficacy and safety of topical tacrolimus for erosive oral lichen planus(EOLP). Methods Literatures published up to December 2013 were searched from Pub Med, Embase, CENTRAL, Chinese Bio Medical Literature Database(CBM), and System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe(SIGLE). All randomized controlled trials(RCTs) of topical tacrolimus for EOLP which compared with other interventions or a placebo were considered in this Meta-analysis. Two researchers collected data independently. The assessment of methodological quality was based on Cochrane Handbook and the materials were analyzed with the software Revman 5.2.5. The primary outcome measures were the symptoms(e.g. pain, discomfort) complained by patients. The secondary outcome measures included the improvement rate of clinical signs assessed by the investigators and the incidence of adverse effects(e.g. clinical candidiasis). Results A total of 9 RCTs involving 476 patients were finally included. The pooled odds ratio(OR) of clinical improvement for topical tacrolimus vs. topical corticosteroids was 1.19 [95% confidence interval(CI): 0.64-2.22, I2: 44%]. Regarding to 0.1% tacrolimus and 0.03% tacrolimus, the pooled OR were 1.87(95 % CI: 0.60-5.82) and 1.47(95 % CI: 0.14-16.04) respectively in subgroup analysis. No serious adverse events were reported in topical tacrolimus group. Conclusions There was no evidence to support that topical tacrolimus for EOLP was more effective and safer than topical corticosteroids in this Meta-analysis. Clinical assessment criteria should be established and accepted by clinicians and researchers before further RCTs are undertaken. Objective To assess the efficacy and safety of topical tacrolimus for erosive oral lichen planus (EOLP). Methods Literatures published up to December 2013 were searched from Pub Med, Embase, CENTRAL, Chinese Bio Medical Literature Database (CBM), and System for Information on Gray literature in Europe (SIGLE). All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of topical tacrolimus for EOLP which compared with other interventions or a placebo were considered in this Meta-analysis. Two an collected data independently. The assessment of methodological quality was based on Cochrane Handbook and the materials were analyzed with the software Revman 5.2.5. The primary outcome measures were the symptoms (eg pain, discomfort) complained by patients. The secondary outcome measures included the improvement rate of clinical signs assessed by the investigators and the incidence of adverse effects (eg clinical candidiasis). Results A total of 9 RCTs involving 476 patients were finally included. The poo led odds ratio (OR) of clinical improvement for topical tacrolimus vs. topical corticosteroids was 1.19 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.64-2.22, I2: 44%]. Regarding to 0.1% tacrolimus and the pooled OR No serious adverse events were reported in topical tacrolimus group. Conclusions There was no evidence to support that topical tacrolimus for EOLP (95% CI: 0.60-5.82) and 1.47 (95% CI: 0.14-16.04) respectively in subgroup analysis. was more effective and safer than topical corticosteroids in this Meta-analysis. Clinical assessment criteria should be established and accepted by clinicians and law before further RCTs are undertaken.