Aim To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the treatment in coronary in-stent restenosis with the cutting balloon angioplasty （CBA） and the plain old balloon angioplasty （POBA）. Methods Cochrane Library Controlled Clinical Trials Database （CCTR）, Pubmed, Embase, Wanfang Database, China Journal Full-text Database （CNKI）, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database （CBM）, VIP Database （VIP） were retrieved. The randomized controlled trial （RCT） materials of the treatment in coronary in-stent restenosis with the CBA and the POBA was collected, 7 RCTs was withdrawed, including 960 patients （493 patients in the CBA group and 467 patients in the POBA）, the RevMan 5.0 software was used in the meta analysis. Results （1）The immediate elastic retraction of the CBA group was lower than the POBA group, there was difference between two groups （MD: －0.52, 95%CI: －0.76～－0.29, P＜0.0001） （2）The elastic retraction rate of the CBA group was lower than the POBA group, there was difference between two groups （MD: －13.83, 95%CI: －16.17～－11.49, P＜0.00001） （3）The stenosis degree of coronary diameter after balloon dilatation in the POBA group was higher than the CBA group, there was difference between two groups （MD: －12.99, 95%CI: －18.09～－7.88, P＜0.00001） （4）The late loss of blood vessel diameter in the CBA group was lower than the POBA group, there was difference between two groups （MD: －13.83, 95%CI: －0.50～－0.28, P＜0.00001） （5）The instent restenosis rate after 6-months-followup in the POBA group was higher than the CBA group, there was difference between two groups （MD: 0.44, 95%CI: 0.44, 10.24, 0.80, P＜0.00001）. Conclusion CBA was more safe and effective in treatment of the coronary in-stent restenosis.