OBJECTIVES The prognosis of patients with metastatic cervical cancer (CC) remains poor, and treatment options are limited, with no single agent or combination of agents recognised as standard of care; cisplatin/paclitaxel is the therapy most cited by guidelines. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of reported treatment options for patients with metastatic CC. METHODS Searches of PubMed were conducted, with no date restrictions, to identify published randomised controlled Phase II/III clinical trials (RCTs) of chemotherapies recommended by treatment guidelines, and radiotherapy and/or surgery, that reported overall survival (OS) in patients with metastatic (systemic recurrent, persistent or de novo-metastatic) CC. Treatment guidelines and the Cochrane Library were also explored to identify additional citations. RESULTS Of 65 articles identified, 10 articles published between 1987 and 2014 proceeded to data extraction. Evidence supporting the use of chemotherapy was limited to cisplatin-monotherapy or platinum-based combination therapy. Overall the OS benefit of these agents ranged from 0.9 to 2.9 months and 0.79 to 1.32 for hazard ratio (HR). The latest innovation, bevacizumab plus chemotherapy, demonstrated the greatest significant gain in OS versus chemotherapy (OS gain 3.7 months; HR 0.71; p=0.004). The study did not identify any RCTs that supported the use of surgery and/or radiotherapy in this setting; the evidence was limited to seven retrospective hospital based studies. CONCLUSIONS This study highlighted an unmet need for additional treatment options for metastatic CC. Use of cisplatin-monotherapy or platinum-based combination therapy has provided limited survival benefits for many decades. The novel combination of bevacizumab plus chemotherapy has demonstrated an increase in survival in these patients. However, since there is no RCT evidence supporting the use of surgery and/or radiotherapy, a health technology appraisal of these alternative interventions is not currently feasible. Additional clinical research is urgently needed to assess the comparative clinical value of these therapies.