This study aims to assess the clinical efficacy and safety of eravacycline for treating complicated intra-abdominal infection (cIAI) in adult patients. The PubMed, Web of Science, EBSCO, Cochrane databases, Ovid Medline, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched up to May 2019. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated eravacycline and other comparators for the treatment of cIAI were included. The primary outcome was the clinical cure rate at the test-of-cure visit based on modified intent-to-treat population, microbiological intent-to-treat population, clinically evaluable population, and microbiological evaluable population, and the secondary outcomes were clinical failure rate and the risk of adverse event. Three RCTs were included. Overall, eravacycline had a clinical cure rate (88.7%, 559/630) at test-of-cure in modified intent-to-treat population similar to comparators (90.1%, 492/546) in the treatment of cIAIs (risk ratio (RR), 0.99; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.95-1.03; I2 = 0%, Figure 3). In the microbiological intent-to-treat, clinically evaluable, and microbiological evaluable populations, no difference was found between eravacycline and comparators in terms of clinical cure rate at test-of-cure (microbiological intent-to-treat population, RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.95-1.04; I2 = 0%, clinically evaluable population, RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.97-1.03; I2 = 0%, microbiological evaluable population, RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.95-1.02; I2 = 0%). In addition, eravacycline had clinical failure rate similar to comparators at test-of-cure in modified intent-to-treat population (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.61-0.69; I2 = 0%), microbiological intent-to-treat population (RR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.77-2.31; I2 = 16%), clinically evaluable population (RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.61-1.76; I2 = 0%), and microbiological evaluable population (RR, 1.32; 95% CI, 0.75-2.32; I2 = 10%). Although eravacycline was associated with higher risk of treatment-emergent adverse event than comparators (RR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.13-1.58; I2 = 0%), no significant differences were found between eravacycline and comparators for the risk of serious adverse event (RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.65-1.65; I2 = 0%), discontinuation of study drug because of adverse event (RR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.23-1.99; I2 = 13%), and all-cause mortality (RR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.41-2.9; I2 = 28%). In conclusion, the clinical efficacy of eravacycline is as high as that of the comparator drugs in the treatment of cIAIs and this antibiotic is as well tolerated as the comparators.