ObjectiveTo systematically evaluate the prognostic prediction models for Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis (IPF). MethodsA computer-based search was conducted in the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases for literature relevant to the research objective, with the search period ranging from database inception to Jun 2025. Two researchers independently screened the articles. Data were extracted according to the key assessment and data extraction checklist for systematic reviews of prediction models (CHARMS). The risk of bias and applicability of the models were assessed using the PROBAST (Prediction model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool). The quality of model reporting was evaluated using the TRIPOD (Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis) checklist. ResultsA total of 49 studies were included, of which 26 (53.06%) reported both model development and validation. The most common predictors included gender, age, diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide, forced vital capacity (FVC), and FVC percentage of predicted value. In terms of bias risk, 32 studies (65.31%) were classified as high risk of bias, mainly due to factors related to study subjects and predictors. Regarding applicability, 26 studies (53.06%) were rated as high risk, 11 studies (22.45%) were rated as unclear, and only 12 studies (24.49%) were rated as low risk, suggesting limited clinical applicability of the models. As for reporting quality, existing models showed generally insufficient adherence to the TRIPOD statement, especially in key areas such as research methods and result reporting, where normative issues were prominent. Of the 22 signaling questions in the TRIPOD checklist, most studies achieved only moderate reporting quality, with 8 signaling questions (1, 5c, 6b, 7b, 8, 11e, 13a, 14a) showing key information omissions or vague descriptions. ConclusionExisting prognostic prediction models for IPF generally exhibit high methodological bias risk and reporting deficiencies. Future studies should control for modeling biases based on the PROBAST framework, adhere to the TRIPOD guidelines for transparent reporting, and optimize clinical applicability through external validation.