目的:系统评价现有前列腺癌筛查指南的方法学质量和报告质量，为今后同类指南的制定和更新提供参考。方法:以前列腺癌、前列腺肿瘤、筛查、筛检、指南、共识、规范、标准、prostate cancer、prostate carcinoma、prostate tumor、screening、early detection、guideline、recommendation等为关键词系统检索中国知网、万方数据知识服务平台、中国生物医学文献服务系统、PubMed、Embase、Cochrane Library，并同时检索机构官网发布的指南作为补充。采用开发指南研究和评估工具Ⅱ（AGREE Ⅱ）和国际实践指南报告标准（RIGHT）对纳入指南的方法学质量和报告质量进行比较和评价。结果:经过筛选后共纳入13部指南。AGREE Ⅱ评价结果显示，推荐等级为A级的有10部、B级的有2部、C级的有1部；13部指南在参与人员、应用性领域得分均较低，平均得分分别为52.1%和34.0%。RIGHT评价结果显示，13部指南的报告质量一般，报告质量较差的条目主要集中在证据（64.6%）、资金资助和利益冲突（44.2%）、其他方面（46.2%）3个领域。结论:我国目前尚无前列腺癌筛查指南。本研究纳入的前列腺癌筛查指南方法学质量整体良好，可为我国指南制定提供参考，但报告质量一般，规范性有待进一步加强。“,”Objective:To systematically review the quality of clinical practice guidelines for prostate cancer screening to serve as a reference for developing prostate cancer screening guidelines in China.Methods:We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data, and SinoMed with the term “prostate cancer” “prostate carcinoma” “prostate tumor” “screening” “early detection” “guideline” “recommendation” as keywords. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) Ⅱ instrument and Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) were used for critical appraisal.Results:A total of thirteen guidelines were included in this review. Evaluated by the AGREE Ⅱ instrument, ten were considered as A level. Two guidelines scored B level, and one was considered C level. Lowest mean domain scores were for stakeholder involvement (52.1%) and applicability (34.0%). Using the RIGHT checklist, we found that the low reporting quality of the thirteen guidelines could be attributable to incomplete disclosure of evidence (64.6%), funding, declaration and management of interest (44.2%), or other information (46.2%).Conclusions:No guidelines for prostate cancer screening was developed in China. The methodological quality of the guidelines in prostate cancer screening was good, which set a tone for the development of Chinese guidelines. However, all guidelines showed poor reporting quality.