Abstract: Objective：To evaluate and analyze the methodology and reporting quality of the clinical practice guidelines for dyspnea by the AGREE Ⅱ instrument and RIGHT checklist， in order to give reference for the formulation and report of guidelines for dyspnea 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 Ⅱ instrument and RIGHT checklist.The consistency was assessed by the ICC value. Results： Five guidelines were included.These guidelines were published from 2008 to 2015， and mainly from four countries and regions， particularly USA(two guidelines， 40.0%)Included guidelines were from journals.The consistency between two assessors was high， ICC value was 0.879 [95%CI(0.856， 0.913)， P=0.008]. The scores of six domains were scope and purpose（63.9%， SD=18.0%）， stakeholder and involvement（30.0%， SD=22.2%）， rigor of development（41.4%， SD=34.6%）， clarity of presentation（68.3%， SD=19.5%）， applicability（20.0%， SD=13.9%） and editorial independence (38.3%， SD=26.3%）， respectivelyThe average score of reporting quality of guidelines was 12.1（SD=2.7）， which the total score of each guideline ranged from 9 to 15.There were eight items in which more than 50% guidelines were evaluated as adequately reporting. Conclusion：80% guidelines for dyspnea are published before 2015， and from the developed countries in European and American.By comparing with the average scores of the guidelines worldwide， the scores of guidelines are lower in the stakeholder and involvement， the other domains are similar or higher. Meahwhile， the RIGHT scores are relative low. Particularly， there are more than 50% guidelines reported nothing in more than 60% items.