Objective     To evaluate the robustness of cardiovascular meta-analysis with use of fragility index. Methods     By searching PubMed, EMbase, and Web of Science databases from 2018 to 2022, relevant literature on cardiovascular meta-analysis was systematically collected and the fragility indexes were calculated; Spearman correlation analysis was used to explore the relationship between fragility index and sample size, total number of events, effect size and its confidence interval width. Results     A total of 212 meta-analyses from 29 articles were included, with a median fragility index of 11 (5, 25), a median sample size of 10 301 (3 384, 48 330), and a median total number of events of 360 (129, 1 309). Most meta-analyses chose relative risk as the effect measure (179/212), and chose Mantel-Haenszel method (102/212) and random effects model (153/212). The fragility index was positively correlated with the sample size (rs=0.56, P<0.05) and the total number of events (rs=0.61, P<0.05), and negatively correlated with confidence interval width of the effect size (rs=−0.52, P<0.05). No statistically significant results were obtained in the correlation between the fragility index and effect size. Conclusion     The fragility indexes of cardiovascular meta-analyses published in comprehensive journals of high impact factors and professional cardiovascular journals are generally low, and therefore lack robustness. Fragility index is suggested to be reported in medical researches, assisting in explaining the P-value.