Objective: To systematically evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of Danshen Injection(丹参注射液, DS) as one adjuvant treatment for conventional therapy with Western medicine(WM) for unstable angina pectoris(UAP). Methods: Using literature databases, a thorough and systematic retrieval of randomized controlled trials(RCTs) comparing DS plus WM with WM was conducted from inception to April 2015. The extracted data from included studies was analyzed by Review Manager 5.2 software. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the quality of included studies, and Begg’s and Egger’s tests conducted by Stata 12.0 were used to evaluate the potential presence of publication bias. Results: A total of 17 RCTs, which involving 1,433 participants, were identified and reviewed. The meta-analysis indicated that the combined use of DS and WM was significantly superior to WM alone for UAP in terms of the total effectiveness rate of angina pectoris [risk ratio(RR) =1.23, 95% confidence interval(CI): 1.17, 1.29, P<0.01] and the total effectiveness rate of electrocardiogram(ECG) [RR=1.18, 95%CI: 1.06, 1.30, P=0.001]. Additionally, DS could also further reduce the content of fibrinogen, adjust blood lipid level, correct T wave inversion, and so on. Fifteen adverse drug reactions were reported in two studies, Four of which appeared in the experimental group. Conclusion: Based on the systematic review, the combined use of DS and WM was more effective than WM alone, it can be further widely used in clinic, however, there was no exact conclusion for its safety. Objective: To systematically evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of Danshen Injection (DS) as one adjuvant treatment for conventional therapy with Western medicine (WM) for unstable angina pectoris (UAP). Methods: Using literature databases, a thorough and systematic retrieval of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing DS plus WM with WM was conducted from in to April 2015. The extracted data from included studies was analyzed by Review Manager 5.2 software. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the quality of included studies, and Begg’s and Egger’s tests conducted by Stata 12.0 were used to evaluate the potential presence of publication bias. Results: A total of 17 RCTs, which involving 1,433 participants, were identified and reviewed. The meta-analysis indicated that the combined use of DS and WM were significantly superior to WM alone for UAP in terms of the total effective rate of angina pectoris [risk ratio (RR) = 1.23, 95% confid ence interval (CI): 1.17, 1.29, P <0.01] and the total effectiveness rate of electrocardiogram (ECG) [RR = 1.18, 95% CI: 1.06, 1.30, P = 0.001] content of fibrinogen, adjust blood lipid level, correct T wave inversion, and so on. Fifteen adverse drug reactions were reported in two studies, Four of which appeared in the experimental group. Conclusion: Based on the systematic review, the combined use of DS and WM was more effective than WM alone, it can be further widely used in clinic, however, there was no exact conclusion for its safety.