Background Clinical practice guidelines (CPG) are statements that provide recommendations regarding the approach to different diseases and aim to increase quality while decrease the risk of complications in health care. Numerous guidelines in the field of perioperative care have been published in the previous decade but their methodological quality and transparency are relatively unknown. Objective To critically evaluate the transparency and methodological quality of published CPG in the preoperative assessment and management of adult patients undergoing elective surgery. Design Descriptive methodological study and quality appraisal. Data sources We searched for eligible CPG published in English or Spanish between January 1, 2010, and June 30, 2022, in MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, as well as in representatives’ medical societies of Anaesthesiology and developers of CPG. Eligibility criteria CPG dedicated on preoperative fasting, cardiac assessment for non-cardiac surgery, and the use of routine preoperative tests were included. Methodological quality and transparency of CPG were assessed by 3 evaluators using the 6 domains of the AGREE-II tool. Results We included 20 CPG of which 14 were classified as recommended guidelines. The domain of "applicability" scored the lowest (44%), while the domains "scope and objective" and "editorial interdependence" received the highest median scores of 93% and 97% respectively. The remaining domains received scores ranging from 44% to 84%. The top mean scored CPG in preoperative fasting was ASA 2017 (93%); among cardiac evaluation, CPG for non-cardiac surgery were CCS 2017 (91%), ESC-ESA 2014 (90%), and AHA-ACC 2014 (89%); in preoperative testing ICSI 2020 (97%). Conclusions In the last ten years, most published CPG in the preoperative assessment or management of adult patients undergoing elective surgery focused on preoperative fasting, cardiac assessment for non-cardiac surgery, and use of routine preoperative tests, present moderate to high methodological quality and can be recommended for their use or adaptation. Applicability and stakeholder involvement domains must be improved in the development of future guidelines.

The authors have declared no competing interest.

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020200026

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.

Yes

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.