OBJECTIVE: The aim of this article was to determine the effects of minimally invasive percutaneous plates versus interlocking intramedullary nailing in the treatment of tibial shaft fractures in adults. METHOD: Literature searches of the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, the Chinese Biomedical Literature database, the CNKI database, Wanfang Data, and the Weipu Journal database were performed up to August 2013. Only randomized and quasi-randomized controlled clinical trials comparing the use of percutaneous plates and interlocking intramedullary nails for tibial shaft fractures were included. Data collection and extraction, quality assessment, and data analyses were performed according to the Cochrane standards. RESULTS: Eleven trials were included. Compared with interlocking intramedullary nailing, minimally invasive percutaneous plates shortened fracture healing time and resulted in lower rates of postoperative delayed union and pain. There was no significant difference between the two methods with regard to the rates of excellent and good Johner-Wruh scoring, the rate of reoperation, and other complications. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, insufficient evidence exists regarding the effects of minimally invasive percutaneous plates versus interlocking intramedullary nailing in the treatment of tibial shaft fractures in adults. Low-quality evidence suggests that minimally invasive percutaneous plates could shorten fracture healing time, decrease the rate of postoperative delayed union, and decrease pain levels compared with interlocking intramedullary nailing. There is no significant difference between the two groups in terms of functional recovery scores, reoperation, and other complications. Further research that includes high-quality randomized controlled, multicenter trials is required to compare the effects of minimally invasive percutaneous plates versus interlocking intramedullary nailing in the treatment of tibial shaft fractures in adults.