Background: Although the clinical efficacy and safety of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in the treatment of chronic tinnitus have been frequently examined, the results remain controversial. Therefore, we systematically meta-classified clinical trials concerning the effects of rTMS to evaluate its clinical efficacy and safety. Methods: Studies of rTMS for chronic tinnitus were retrieved in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library due April 2020. Review Manager 5.3 software was employed for data synthesis and Stata 13.0 software for analyses of publication bias and sensitivity. Results: Twenty-nine randomized studies representing 1,228 chronic tinnitus patients were included. Compared with sham-rTMS, rTMS exhibited significant improvements in the tinnitus handicap inventory (THI) score 1-week (mean difference [MD] -7.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] -14.18,-1.66), 1-month (MD -8.52, 95% CI -12.49, -4.55), and 6-month post-intervention (MD -6.53, 95% CI -11.406,-1.66), the mean change in THI scores 1- (MD -14.86, 95% CI -21.42,-8.29) and 6-month post-intervention (MD -16.37, 95% CI -20.64,-12.11), and the tinnitus questionnaire (TQ) score 1-week post-intervention (MD -8.54, 95% CI -15.56,-1.52). Non-significant efficacy of rTMS was found concerning the THI score 2-week post-intervention (MD -1.51, 95% CI -13.42,-10.40), the mean change in TQ scores 1-month post-intervention (MD -3.67, 95% CI -8.56,1.22), the TQ score 1- (MD -8.97, 95% CI -20.41,2.48) and 6-month post-intervention (MD -7.02, 95% CI -18.18,4.13), and adverse events (odds ratios [OR] 1.11, 95% CI 0.51,2.42). The Egger's and Begg's tests indicated no publication bias ( P = 0.925). Conclusion: This meta-analysis demonstrates that rTMS is effective for chronic tinnitus; however, its safety needs more validations. Restrained by the limited number of included studies and the small sample size, more large randomized double-blind multi-center trials are needed for further verification.