Prophylactic inferior vena cava filters (pIVCFs) for the prevention of pulmonary embolism (PE) are controversial. Current practice guidelines (EAST and ACCP) are based on the critical appraisal of observational studies. As a result, their recommendations are conflicting and may account for practice pattern variation. The purpose of this study is to critically review the available literature and ascertain the level of evidence both for and against the use of pIVCFs for PE prophylaxis in trauma patients. We searched PubMed and Web of Science for publications from 1950 until July 2010 that assessed the efficacy of PE prevention with pIVCFs in the trauma population. We followed the MOOSE (Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) guidelines for design, implementation, and reporting. The Newcastle-Ottawa Score was used for quality and comparability assessment. Seven observational studies met inclusion criteria for this meta-analysis, representing 1,900 patients. Only one study was published in this decade. The rate of PE was statistically lower in the IVCF group compared to a matched control group without IVCFs (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.09-0.49). There was no significant difference in DVT. Using the MOOSE criteria these results show a decreased likelihood of PE among trauma patients who receive pIVCFs. Although these results could favor the placement of pIVCFs, the lack of contemporary use of pharmacologic prophylaxis across studies does not allow us to make firm conclusions either for or against the routine use of pIVCFs. Prospective randomized trials are needed to determine the role of pIVCFs in high-risk trauma patients.