Objectives
To determine the methodological quality of current lymphoedema clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to assist healthcare professionals in selecting accessible, high-quality guidance and to identify areas for improvement in future CPGs.

Methods
Medline, EMBASE, online CPG databases and reference lists of included guidelines were searched up to 31st January 2020. Full-text CPGs reporting on evidence-based recommendations in lymphoedema diagnosis and/or management in English were included. CPGs based on expert consensus, CPG summaries or CPGs that were not freely available were excluded. Two reviewers identified eligible CPGs, extracted data and assessed their quality independently using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument. Significant scoring discrepancies were discussed with a third reviewer. An overall scaled quality score of ≥80% was the threshold to recommend guideline use.

Results
Six relevant CPGs were identified. One was subsequently excluded as its full-text could not be obtained. Overall, there was very good inter-reviewer reliability of scores with ICC of 0.952 (95% CI, 0.921-0.974). No single CPG scored highest in all domains, with methodological heterogeneity observed. Poor performance was noted in domains 5 (mean scaled score 23.8±17.1%) and 6 (22.9±26.7%). No CPG achieved an overall scaled quality score of ≥80%, with the top CPG scoring 79.2%.

Conclusions
According to the defined threshold, no lymphoedema CPG was considered adequate for use in clinical practice. All current lymphoedema CPGs have areas for improvement with elements of methodological quality lacking, particularly with respect to rigour of development. A structured approach, guided by the use of CPG creation tools and checklists such as the AGREE II instrument, should help CPG development groups in improving the quality of future CPGs; this is of particular importance in a complex, multidisciplinary condition such as lymphoedema.