Abstract: Objective：To evaluate and analyze the methodology and reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines for pulmonary heart disease by the AGREE Ⅱ instrument and RIGHT checklist， in order to give reference for the formulation and report of guidelines for pulmonary heart disease in the future. Methods：We systematically searched five general databases， including PubMed， EMBASE， Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM)， Wanfang database， and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI)， and four guidelines databases， namely， Guidelines International Network（GIN）， Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network（SIGN）， National Guideline Clearinghouse（NGC）and National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence（NICE）.Additionally， we also searched the website of Yimaitong.Two independent reviewers screened and extracted data.When meeting the disagreement， we solved it by discussion or consultation with a third reviewer-Two reviewers evaluated methodology and reporting quality of the included guidelines by AGREE Ⅱinstrument and RIGHT checklist.The consistency was assessed by the ICC value. Results： Four guidelines were included. These guidelines were published from 2013 to 2016， and mainly from four countries， particularly UK (two guidelines， 50.0%).Three guidelines (75.0%) were from the website of guidelines， and one guideline (25.0%) was from journals.The consistency between two assessors was high， ICC value was 0.873[95%CI（0.851， 0.909）， P=0.004]. The scores of six domains were scope and purpose （27.1%， SD=6.2%）， stakeholder and involvement（50.7%， SD=5.7%）， rigor of development（44.9%， SD=3.4%）， clarity of presentation（78.5%， SD=15.4%）， applicability（27.1%， SD=8.2%）， and editorial independence（57.3%， SD=30.9%）， respectively.The average score of reporting quality of guidelines was 12.6（SD=1.2）， which the total score of each guideline ranged from 11 to 13.5. There were five items in which more than 50% guidelines were evaluated as adequately reporting. Conclusion：25% guidelines for pulmonary heart disease are published from 2016 to 2017， and from the European countries.By comparing with the average scores of the guidelines worldwide， the scores of guidelines for pulmonary heart disease are apparently higher in most domains， apart from “scope and purpose”.At the same time， the RIGHT scores are relative low. Particularly， there are more than 50% quidelines reported nonthing in more than 40% items.