ObjectiveTo evaluate the scientificity, transparency and applicability of the Chinese consensuses on urological diseases published in 2021. MethodsPubMed, CBM, CNKI, WanFang Data databases and related websites were electronically searched to collect Chinese consensuses on urological diseases from January 1 to December 31, 2021. Each consensus was scored with the scientific, transparent, and applicable rating (STAR) tools, and analyzed by using descriptive methods. ResultsA total of 28 Chinese consensuses were included. The STAR scores ranged from 9.9 to 32.3 with a mean of 17.3±6.3. The included consensus had a high score ratio in the items such as listing participants and institutions, providing identifiable recommendations, explaining the precautions for implementation of recommendations, having corresponding references for recommendations, and reporting future research directions. However, only 14.3% reported the methodology of consensus formation, and the record of consensus process and consideration of patient preferences, values and costs were not noted. No consensus reported responsibilities of panel specialists in the method section or included experts in the field of guideline methodology or evidence-based medicine. No consensus reported detailed information in managing conflicts of interest. Few reported no affection by funding. No consensus reported methods for collecting and selecting clinical questions, or evaluating, summarizing and grading evidence. Research gaps were not reported in a clear or standardized way. ConclusionAs a medical guidance document, expert consensus still plays an important role now in China. The quality of consensus on urological diseases can be further improved in methods of consensus formation, working groups, conflicts of interest, funding, accessibility, clinical questions, retrieval and evaluation of evidence, research gap, etc.