Background Although several guidelines for the evaluation of recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) have been published by international societies worldwide, there is limited research on the impact of race and ethnicity on RPL. This article aims to review the most recent international guidelines regarding the evaluation of RPL and reported prevalence of different etiologies of RPL worldwide. Methods Key words were searched using the PubMed search engine, yielding approximately 300 articles. Every published societal guideline on RPL evaluation was included in the study including guidelines published by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM), Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynaecologists (RCOG), European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE), Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Japan Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (JSOG, JAOG), French College of Gynaecologists and Obstetricians (CNGOF), Australian Certificate of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility Consensus Expert Pane, Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in Ireland, and German Society of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Austrian Society of Gynecology and Obstetrics, and Swiss Society of Gynecology and Obstetrics (DGGG, ÖGGG, and SGGG). A total of 11 prevalence studies of RPL were published and included in this article. Results All societal guidelines recommend routine evaluation of uterine anatomy, lupus anticoagulant antibodies, and anti-cardiolipin antibodies in RPL patients. Assessing thyroid stimulating hormone levels is addressed and supported by all guidelines excluding JAOG/JSOG guidelines. Routine parental karyotype testing is recommended by ACOG, CDGOF, JAOG/JSOG, and Australian societies. ASRM, ESHRE, and RCOG advises parental karyotypes only if genetic testing of miscarriage tissue is unbalanced or untested. Most societies support the testing of prolactin levels if evidence of hyperprolactinemia. Routine testing of progesterone, luteal phase deficiency, and sperm DNA fragmentation levels varies in different guidelines. Routine testing of HLA, natural killer cells, and hereditary thrombophilia is not endorsed by international guidelines. Regarding the prevalence of different RPL etiologies internationally, western countries (United States, Canada, and Italy) report a high prevalence of uterine anomalies in RPL patients (18.1, 25.5, and 23.7%, respectively) whereas a low prevalence is noted in the Middle East (1.1% in Qatar, 2.2% in Kuwait, 5% in Oman, and 6.5% in Saudi Arabia). Moreover, a high prevalence of antiphospholipid antibodies is reported in RPL patients in Kuwait, Saudia Arabia, and India (range 24.7–25.8%). Conclusion There are similarities and differences between international societal guidelines on the evaluation of RPL. Although some studies have assessed the prevalence of different etiologies of RPL in different countries, the studies are limited and there is a lack of research on the ethnic differences of RPL. More research regarding the impact of race and ethnicity on RPL is warranted.