The majority of reporting guidelines are not developed with the Delphi method: a systematic review of reporting guidelines
Abstract
Objectives Previous guidance of reporting guidelines recommends incorporating the Delphi method to integrate the opinions of experts for consensus when developing reporting guidelines. The purpose of this study was to clarify whether reporting guidelines typically use the Delphi method, what factors may be associated with the use of Delphi, and the reporting quality of Delphi. Study design and setting We included all reporting guidelines (n = 244) in the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency of health Research (EQUATOR) Network published after January 1, 2011. We assessed the trends and factors associated with conducting Delphi and the reporting quality of Delphi against current reporting guidelines. Results Of 244, 62 (25%) used Delphi for consensus building. The proportion of reporting guidelines that used Delphi was less than 10% in 2011 and 2012 and 29% in 2019. The year of publication, number of authors, and multiple and simultaneous publications were associated with the use of Delphi. The reporting quality of the Delphi method was moderate in most reporting guidelines developed with Delphi. Conclusions The use of Delphi in reporting guidelines is insufficient. Users and reviewers should carefully appraise the consensus building in the guidelines. Protocol and registration We applied a prespecified protocol to conduct this study (Banno M, Tsujimoto Y, Kataoka Y. Reporting quality of the Delphi technique in reporting guidelines: a protocol for a systematic analysis of th…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
An insufficient number of clinical guidelines have been developed using the Delphi method, which is highly recommended for this purpose.
“An insufficient number of clinical guidelines have been developed using the Delphi method, which is highly recommended for this purpose.26”
From Algorithm for Temporomandibular Disorders With Osteopathic Manipulative Therapy: An Expert Consensus (2025) · cites this paper as [26]
Cites
The Delphi Technique: Making Sense of Consensus
Hsu, C.-C., & Sandford, B. A. (2007) · University of Massachusetts Amherst · doi:10.7275/pdz9-th90 · Cited by 4,500 · see citing works
Diamond, I. R., Grant, R. C., Feldman, B. M., Pencharz, P. B., Ling, S. C., Moore, A. M., & Wales, P. W. (2014) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.12.002 · Cited by 3,740 · see citing works
Panic, N., Leoncini, E., de Belvis, G., Ricciardi, W., & Boccia, S. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0083138 · Cited by 883 · see citing works
Guidelines for Reporting Health Research: The EQUATOR Network's Survey of Guideline Authors
Simera, I., Altman, D. G., Moher, D., Schulz, K. F., & Hoey, J. (2008) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050139 · Cited by 220 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Algorithm for Temporomandibular Disorders With Osteopathic Manipulative Therapy: An Expert Consensus
De-La-Iglesia, L., Bravo, C., Justribó-Manion, C., Montmany, A., Roman-Arias, T., Hue, I., Dugailly, P.-M., Colasanto, S., Van-Caille, P., & Rubí-Carnacea, F. (2025) · Journal of Chiropractic Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.jcm.2025.09.034 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
“26 It is a method that provides reports with a very high quality.”
- Authors
- Banno, M., Tsujimoto, Y., & Kataoka, Y.
- Affiliations
- Scientific Research WorkS Peer Support Group (JP)
- Kyoto University (JP)
- Corresponding author
- Banno, Masahiro
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2020-08
- Volume
- 124
- Pages
- 50-57
- ISSN
- 0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3016524294
- Cited by
- 65
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 3
- FWCI
- 1.75
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
- Keywords
- reporting guidelines, Delphi method, consensus building, EQUATOR Network, reporting quality, guideline development, expert consensus
- MeSH terms
- Data Management, Delphi Technique, Humans, Research Design, Guidelines as Topic, Consensus, Research Report
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review