根據本文對清代《三國志》的研究，顯示出清人研究《三國志》受其學術風氣與社會環境的影響，在補注方面雖有顯著的貢獻，但亦有不當之處與侷限。 　　就補注史書而言，清代學者於此用力甚深，他們不僅補《三國志》內文，使史文更加完備，令觀者一目瞭然。他們也針對《三國志》無表志的體例缺陷，以補表補志來完整呈現三國時代的典章制度。在求真的前提下，他們不僅博覽群書、親身訪查，還以闕疑的精神保存互異的史料，最後更以嚴密的史學體例來鎔鑄各種不同的史料，不同的見解、說法，全面性的補充、注解《三國志》內文、表志，可說對史書的整理做了最卓越的貢獻。 　　然而史學研究不可能盡善盡美，考證歷史亦不可能完整而無缺，清代學者的補注工作也是如此，它仍存有某些問題。其中比較大的問題就在於引書未考其失、體例與內容的不合以及考證失實等。引書未考其失不僅讓人對書中的某些記載感到懷疑，也會致使書中的某些觀點無法成立，影響其史學價值。體例與內容的不合則使人們無法清楚認識著作內容與體例間的關係。至於清代學者以一人之力從事補注工作，出現考證失實、註解乖違原意的情況都是在所難免，這些不妥之處都值得吾人注意。

This article indicates that the Ching scholars were influenced by academic atmosphere and social environment in the time. They contribute a lot in the supplement document to the study of the History of the Three Kingdoms, but in their works we can still find some inappropriate information and limitation. As for supplementary historical books, Ching scholars dedicate their time and effort in them. They not only increase the content of the History of the three Kingdoms, but also make them more completed. They make readers easily grasp the idea. Ching scholars also point out the drawbacks in the History of the three Kingdoms. Moverover, they try to present the completed image during the period of the Three Kingdoms. In Addition, they do the on-the-spot investigation and read extensively about many kinds of books. They take the doubtful attitude to reserve different views. They make a great contribution to study of the History of the three Kingdoms. However, their study still has some mistakes. For example, it is not accurate to reach for profs and the outlines do not go along with the content, ect. Therefore, we should pay attention to these aspects.