AbstractHalf of osteoporotic fractures occur in patients with normal/osteopenic bone density or at intermediate or low estimated risk. Muscle measures have been shown to contribute to fracture risk independently of bone mineral density. The objectives were to review the measurements of muscle health (muscle mass/quantity/quality, strength and function) and their association with incident fragility fractures and to summarize their use in clinical practice. This scoping review follows the PRISMA‐ScR guidelines for reporting. Our search strategy covered the three overreaching concepts of ‘fragility fractures’, ‘muscle health assessment’ and ‘risk’. We retrieved 14 745 references from Medline Ovid SP, EMBASE, Web of Science Core Collection and Google Scholar. We included original and prospective studies on community‐dwelling adults aged over 50 years that analysed an association between at least one muscle parameter and incident fragility fractures. We systematically extracted 17 items from each study, including methodology, general characteristics and results. Data were summarized in tables and graphically presented in adjusted forest plots. Sixty‐seven articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria. In total, we studied 60 muscle parameters or indexes and 322 fracture risk ratios over 2.8 million person‐years (MPY). The median (interquartile range) sample size was 1642 (921–5756), age 69.2 (63.5–73.6) years, follow‐up 10.0 (4.4–12.0) years and number of incident fragility fractures 166 (88–277). A lower muscle mass was positively/not/negatively associated with incident fragility fracture in 28 (2.0), 64 (2.5) and 10 (0.2 MPY) analyses. A lower muscle strength was positively/not/negatively associated with fractures in 53 (1.3), 57 (1.7 MPY) and 0 analyses. A lower muscle function was positively/not/negatively associated in 63 (1.9), 45 (1.0 MPY) and 0 analyses. An in‐depth analysis shows how each single muscle parameter was associated with each fragility fractures subtype. This review summarizes markers of muscle health and their association with fragility fractures. Measures of muscle strength and function appeared to perform better for fracture risk prediction. Of these, hand grip strength and gait speed are likely to be the most practical measures for inclusion in clinical practice, as in the evaluation of sarcopenia or in further fracture risk assessment scores. Measures of muscle mass did not appear to predict fragility fractures and might benefit from further research, on D3‐creatine dilution test, lean mass indexes and artificial intelligence methods.