The current study aimed to assess the reporting quality of the clinical practice guidelines/consensuses on metastatic colorectal cancer based on the Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in HealThcare (RIGHT) checklist.We searched China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP database, Wanfang Data, Chinese Biological Literature Service System, PubMed, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, Elsevier clinicalkey, BMJ Database, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, World Health Organization Network and other websites. We collected clinical practice guidelines/consensuses on metastatic colorectal cancer with published between 1 January 2017 and 1 April 2021 after release of the RIGHT checklist. Two reviewers extracted the basic information independently and conducted a RIGHT evaluation.Eighteen guidelines/consensuses were included, 10 from China and 8 from other countries. The average reporting rate was 74.1%±11.2%. Thirteen items had 100% reporting rate, and the reporting rate for items No. 16 (11.1%), 17 (16.7%) and 18b (22.2%) was low. Basic information had the highest reporting rate (100%), whereas review and quality assurance had the lowest (13.9%). The average reporting rate of guidelines/consensuses published in other countries was higher than in China [p=0.005; odds ration (OR) 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07-1.28]. The average reporting rate of the guidelines was higher than that of the consensus statements (p<0.001; OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.10-1.31). The reporting rates of guidelines/consensuses focused on whole body (79.0%±12.7%) were higher than local organ (69.2%±7.3%) metastases (p=0.005; OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.04-1.25).The quality of reporting using the RIGHT checklist varied among the guidelines/consensuses on metastatic colorectal cancer. Low-quality items were external review and quality assurance. Developers of guidelines/consensuses should aim to improve the reporting quality in the future.Copyright © 2022 FECA. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.