The common fixation techniques for unstable distal radius fractures include open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with plates and closed reduction and external fixation (EF). There is controversy over the choice of surgical approach in treating unstable distal radius fractures. This meta-analysis was performed to compare complication rates in patients treated with ORIF or EF for unstable distal radius fractures and to develop GRADE (grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation)-based recommendations for using the procedures to treat unstable distal radius fractures. A systematic search of all the studies published was conducted using the Pubmed, ScienceDirect, Embase, BIOSIS, Springer, Cochrane Library databases. The randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared ORIF with EF in treating adult patients with unstable distal radius fractures and provided data regarding the complication were identified. The demographic characteristics and adverse events were manually extracted from all of the included studies. RevMan 5.1 was used for data analysis. PRISMA guidelines were followed. Sixteen studies that included a total of 1280 patients met the inclusion criteria. Compared with ORIF, EF results in higher incidence of total complications, infection and malunion. The overall GRADE system evidence quality was very low, which reduces our confidence in the recommendations of this system. This meta-analysis indicates that ORIF and EF are both effective procedures for treating unstable distal radius fractures. ORIF may be superior to EF in the treatment of unstable distal radius fractures. Because of the low quality evidence currently available, high-quality RCTs are required. Level II: low-powered prospective randomized trial meta-analysis.