Introduction <p>Multiligament knee injuries are an uncommon and heterogeneous group of injuries and standardizing reporting on these injuries is a challenge. Given the complexity of multiligament knee injuries (MLKIs) and the ongoing debate regarding optimal management strategies, a comprehensive understanding of the current evidence is essential to guide evidence-based decision-making and improve patient care.</p> Aim <p>In this systematic review, we aimed to assess the systematic reviews and meta-analyses on MLKIs and synthesize their findings. This will enable us to identify areas where the current evidence is strong and where further research is needed.</p> Methods <p>Adhering to PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive search in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library identified 36 eligible systematic reviews. AMSTAR 2 criteria were used to assess the methodological quality. For agreement between the raters, the inter-rater reliability Cohen's kappa was used.</p> Results <p>Most of the systematic reviews assessed with AMSTAR 2 criteria had a critically low level of evidence (<i>n</i> = 26), with the rest being low (<i>n</i> = 8), moderate (<i>n</i> = 3), and one high, indicating caution in interpreting findings.</p> Discussion <p>This study highlights the scarcity of high-quality systematic reviews (SRs) on multiligament knee injuries (MLKIs), largely due to the diversity in injury patterns, management protocols, and reporting standards.</p> Conclusion <p>Most research on these injuries are of low quality, and recommendations have been made to improve reporting. Many areas of these injuries require further studies to improve the outcomes.</p>