目的 系统评价育龄期癌症患者生育忧虑评估工具的测量学属性及研究的方法学质量，为选择育龄期癌症患者生育忧虑量表提供参考。方法 系统检索中国知网、中国生物医学文献数据库、万方数据库、维普期刊数据库、PubMed、Web of Science、CINAHL Ultimate、Embase数据库，获取建库至2024年3月17日，有关育龄期癌症患者生育忧虑评价量表测量学属性的文献。2名研究者独立提取资料，基于共识选择健康测量工具的标准（consensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement instruments，COSMIN）系统评价指南，对纳入的评估工具进行评价，并形成对于量表的最终推荐意见。结果 共纳入16项研究，涉及12个育龄期癌症患者生育忧虑量表，均未报告校标效度、测量误差和反应度。癌症后生育忧虑量表（Reproductive Concerns After Cancer Scale，RCAC）等5个量表均存在具有高质量证据证明测量学属性“不充分”，被评为C级量表;其他量表被评为B级，其中，中文版RCAC有高等级证据表明其结构效度、内部一致性、假设检验和跨文化效度为“充分”，测量学属性报告更为全面。结论 与其他量表相比，中文版RCAC的测量学属性得到了最为全面的评价，具有较好的信效度，可暂时被推荐使用。

Objective To systematically evaluate the measurement properties and methodological quality of assessment tools for reproductive concerns in women of reproductive age with cancer，and provide recommendations for selecting an appropriate reproductive concerns scale. Methods A systematic search of the China National Knowledge Infrastructure，China Biology Medicine disc，Wanfang Data Knowledge Service Platform and China Science and Technology Journal Database，PubMed，Embase，the Web of Science，the CINAHL Ultimate database was conducted to obtain the literature on the measurement properties of the reproductive concerns measure for women of reproductive age with cancer，the time limit for the retrieval was up to March 17，2024. Two researchers independently extracted information based on consensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement instruments（COSMIN），evaluated the included evaluation tools and formed final recommendations for the measuring table. Results A total of 16 studies involving 12 reproductive concerns scales were included，none of which reported criterion validity，measurement error，or responsiveness. Five scales，including the Reproductive Concerns After Cancer Scale（RCAC），had high-quality evidence of “inadequate” measurement properties and were rated as C-level scales，and the others were rated as B-level scales. Among them，the Chinese version of the RCAC had high levels of evidence of “adequate” structural validity，internal consistency，hypothesis testing，and cross-cultural validity，and the measurement properties were reported more comprehensively. Conclusion Compared to other scales，the measurement properties of the Chinese version of the RCAC have been evaluated in the most comprehensive way，with a better reliability and validity，and can be recommended for use.