Objective To systematically review venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk assessment tools. Methods The Embase, PubMed, CNKI, CBM, WanFang Data, VIP databases and 22 relevant institutions and associations were searched to identify all VTE assessment tools from inception to December 31, 2022. Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted data, and cross-checked the data. A qualitative analysis was used to describe the country's essential characteristics, publishing organization, year, applicable disease type, applicable population, tool formation method, etc. Key elements and techniques were compared in terms of evaluation dimension, methods, and procedures to form the tool, risk stratification ability, and whether to verify. Results A total of 42 VTE risk assessment tools were included, of which 16 were in the United States, and only 4 were in China. They were released between 1996 and 2021, and the applicable disease types and populations differ. Nineteen tools were constructed based on case-control or retrospective cohort studies, 16 were conducted using prospective cohort studies, and 5 were based on cross-sectional and RCT studies; Additionally, 20 tools were built based on logistic regression models; The evaluation dimensions of each tool differed, and the most common frequency of occurrences were VTE history, age, BMI value, and confirmed tumor, accounting for 64.29%, 54.76%, 54.76%, and 47.62%, respectively. Thirty-three tools were stratified for risk, and 30 tools were presented in the form of risk scores; Some tools lacked clinical validation data, and only 12 tools were analyzed for specificity, sensitivity, NPV, PPV, and AUC. Conclusion The evaluation dimensions and evidence sources of existing VTE risk assessment tools are not completely consistent, the implementation methods and results presentation forms of the tools are not completely the same, and the scope of application is different; Some tool construction methods and processes are not clear enough, and there is a lack of validation research on external validity, which has certain limitations in promoting clinical practice in China.