Objective To evaluate the methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines and expert consensus of chronic heart failure at home and abroad.Methods PubMed, EMbase, SinoMed, CNKI, WanFang Data and VIP databases and related websites were searched to collect guidelines (or expert consensus) about chronic heart failure published from January 1st, 2011 to December 31 st, 2020. Four reviewers evaluated the methodological quality of the guidelines or expert consensus with the AGREE Ⅱ tool after the consistency evaluation training.Results A total of 17 studies were included, consisting of 11 English and 6 Chinese studies. The recommended level was B level (Recommend after modification) 10, C level (Not recommended) 7. The AGREE Ⅱ standardized mean scores for various fields were scope and purpose (69.61%), stakeholder involvement (34.20%), rigor of development (33.13%), clarity and presentation (84.53%), applicability (42.40%), and editorial independence (37.09%). The methodological quality of English guidelines was generally high (level B 11 and level C 6), while all the scores of Chinese guidelines or consensus in six fields were almost lower than the average (level C 6).Conclusion The guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of chronic heart failure need to be further improved in terms of stakeholder involvement and rigor of development. It should develop standards and methods to improve the quality for Chinese guidelines or expert consensus, so as to better serve clinical practice.