Objective To verify the applicability of AGREE-China and select high-quality clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) or consensus for the management of fragility fractures (FF) in China by evaluating their methodological quality. Methods CBM, CNKI, WanFang Data, VIP databases and related CPGs websites were electronically searched. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and checked each other. Quality appraisal of CPGs or consensus were evaluated by AGREE Ⅱ and AGREE-China, and weighted Kappa value and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated to illustrate the consistency of the two tools. Results Nine CPGs and sixteen consensuses were included. Among the six domains in AGREE Ⅱ, "scope and purpose" domain (62.22%) scored higher than "clarity of presentation" domain (45.67%). The "stakeholder involvement" domain (34.89%) and "applicability" domain (38.17%) both exceeded 30%, while "rigor of development" domain (18.79%) and "editorial independence" domain (13.33%) were lower. Among the five domains in AGREE-China, "conflict of interest" domain (72.80%) was higher, followed by "usability/feasibility" domain (49.87%), while "scientificity/preciseness" domain (20.36%), "effectiveness/safety" domain (25.20%) and "economic efficiency" domain (14.40%) were lower. The weighted Kappa value of recommendations from the two tools was 0.694 (P<0.001), showing moderate consistency. ICC values of the same items and two evaluators were all greater than 0.85 (P<0.001) with high consistency. Three high-quality CPGs were consistently selected by the two tools. Conclusion AGREE Ⅱ holds high consistency with AGREE-China; however, AGREE-China is more suitable for the quality appraisal of Chinese CPGs or consensus. The methodological quality of CPGs or consensus for the management of FF in China needs to be further improved.