ObjectiveTo determine the differences in quality in post-stroke rehabilitation guidelines between high-income countries and middle or low-income countries.Study designA systematic search for all CPGs on post stroke rehabilitation was made. Subsequently, the quality of these guidelines was assessed using multiple tools addressing different aspects. Finally, to compare the results of CPGs originating from high income countries (HIC) with those from low-income (LIC) and medium-income countries (MIC).Results35 documents met the inclusion criteria and were assessed. 21 from HIC and 14 from MIC, we did not find any documents from LIC. The quality of documents from MIC is lower, especially on methodologic rigor and attainment of international recommendations for the development of guidelines. CPGs from both groups of countries fail on inclusion of all possible target audiences and stakeholders (6P’s) and integration of ethical, legal, social, and economic (ELSE) considerations.ConclusionsThere are gaps in quality and availability of stroke rehabilitation guidelines between HIC and LMIC countries. Countries with less resources should focus their efforts on adopting, adapting, or contextualizing existing CPGs. It's essential to ensure that these guidelines encompass and consider the specific needs and views of all potential stakeholders in their populations, address local socioeconomic, ethical, and legal aspects, adhere to rigorous methodological standards, and meet the recommended criteria for guideline development. Recognizing these areas of improvement can contribute to the effective implementation of evidence-based guidelines and improve patient outcomes.