Report Approval for Transcranial Electrical Stimulation (RATES): expert recommendation based on a Delphi consensus study

Transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) has gained substantial momentum as a research and therapeutic tool; however, it suffers from challenges related to reproducibility and quality assessment due to the absence of standardized reporting practices. Here we aim to develop a comprehensive and consensus-based checklist for conducting and reporting tES studies to enhance the quality of research and reports. In this Consensus Statement, we used a Delphi approach conducted across three rounds and involving 38 experts to identify crucial elements required to report in tES studies. This consensus-driven approach included the evaluation of the interquartile deviation (>1.00), the percentage of positive responses (above 60%) and mean importance ratings (<3), hence ensuring the creation of a robust and well-balanced checklist. These metrics were utilized to assess both the consensus reached and importance ratings for each item. Consensus was reached, leading to the retention of 66 out of the initial 70 items. These items were categorized into five groups: participants (12 items), stimulation device (9 items), electrodes (12 items), current (12 items) and procedure (25 items). We then distilled a shorter version of the checklist, which includes the 26 items deemed essential. The Report Approval for Transcranial Electrical Stimulation (RATES) checklist is relevant to those carrying out and assessing tES studies, as it provides a structured framework for researchers to consider and report. For reviewers, it can serve as a tool to assess completeness, comprehensiveness and transparency of reports. In addition, the RATES checklist aims to promote a deeper understanding of tES and facilitates comparisons between studies within the field. Overall, the RATES checklist provides a shared reference point that may improve research quality, foster harmonization in reporting and, ultimately, enhance the interpretability and reproducibility of findings in both research and clinical contexts.