RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Severe traumatic brain injury constitutes a clinical entity with complex underlying pathophysiology. Management of patients with severe traumatic brain injury is guided by Clinical Practice Guidelines and Consensus Statements (CPG and CS). The published CPG and CS vary in quality, comprehensiveness, and clinical applicability. The value of critically assessing CPG and CS cannot be overemphasized. The aim of our study was to assess the quality of the published CPG and CS, based on the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument. METHODS: A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science focusing on guidelines and consensi about severe traumatic brain injury . The search terms used were "traumatic brain injury," "TBI," "brain injury," "cerebral trauma," "head trauma," "closed head injury," "head injury," "guidelines," "recommendations," "consensus" in any possible combination. The search period extended from 1964 to 2021 and was limited to literature published in English. The eligible studies were scored by 4 raters, using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument. The inter-rater agreement was assessed using the Cronbach's alpha. RESULTS: Twelve CPG and CS were assessed. Overall, the study by Carney et al. was the most Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II compliant study. In general, the domains of clarity of presentation, and scope and purpose, achieved the highest scores. The lowest inter-rater agreement in our analysis was "fair." CONCLUSIONS: The purpose of our study for assessing the quality of CPG and CS was served. We present the strong and weak points of CPG and CS. Our findings support the idea of periodically updating guidelines and improving their rigor of development.