What should you report in a Delphi study?
A strong report lets readers follow the complete path from the research question and panel design to the final classifications, recommendations, and unresolved disagreements.
Reporting begins before the first invitation
Transparent Delphi reporting is not something to reconstruct after the study ends. Record the planned panel, questionnaire development, rounds, feedback, consensus and stopping rules, then show who participated and how every important decision was made.
The goal is not simply to produce a longer methods section. It is to make the complete path from initial evidence to final conclusions understandable, auditable, and reproducible.
Report the design decisions—not only the final result
Readers need to know what kind of Delphi was conducted and why it was appropriate. Identify whether the study used conventional rounds, a modified Delphi, Real-Time Delphi, RAND/UCLA, or a hybrid design. Explain how the initial items were generated, reviewed, and pilot tested.
A 2026 overview in Hospital Pediatrics emphasizes transparent reporting of panel selection, initial-item evidence, predefined consensus criteria, response rates, iterative feedback, and decisions between rounds.
Record before launch
- Study objective, Delphi variant, and rationale.
- Source and development of the initial questionnaire.
- Rating dimensions, scales, and response options.
- Consensus, disagreement, inclusion, exclusion, and stopping rules.
- Planned number of rounds and any conditions that could change the plan.
Describe who was invited, who participated, and who remained
Define what qualified someone as an expert or stakeholder. Report recruitment sources, eligibility criteria, invitations, participation, completions, and attrition for every round. When several stakeholder groups matter, show these numbers by group rather than relying only on a pooled total.
A meta-research study of 1,904 Delphi studies found that only 19% reported a planned sample size and only 16% explained its rationale. The lesson is not that every study needs the same number; it is that every study should explain why its planned panel was suitable. Read the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology study.
Report the panel as it was actually recruited. A purposive group of experts should not be presented as though it were a population-representative probability sample.
Participation details to preserve by round
| Measure | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Invited and eligible | Shows the recruitment pool and selection process. |
| Started and completed | Separates access or partial participation from usable responses. |
| Included in each analysis | Makes the denominator behind every percentage clear. |
| Retained from the prior round | Shows attrition and whether panel composition changed. |
| Stakeholder composition | Reveals whether pooled findings conceal missing or underrepresented perspectives. |
Make the process between rounds visible
A Delphi report should explain what feedback panelists received, whether they could see their prior rating, and how they were asked to reconsider it. If qualitative comments were summarized, describe how comments were reviewed, coded, selected, edited, or anonymized.
Document every substantive change between rounds: items added, removed, merged, split, or reworded; the evidence or feedback behind the change; who approved it; and whether the change followed the protocol. If the study stopped earlier or continued longer than planned, explain why.
- Feedback statistics and distributions shown to panelists.
- Qualitative feedback and confidentiality procedures.
- Item wording and status in each round.
- Steering-committee or research-team decisions.
- Protocol deviations and their justification.
Report more than a final list of accepted items
For each important item, show the scale, number of valid ratings, relevant distribution, summary statistics, predefined threshold, and resulting classification. Distinguish consensus in, consensus out, unresolved items, and meaningful disagreement. If the design uses several dimensions—such as importance and feasibility—report which criterion each item passed or failed.
Round-to-round reporting should show whether ratings converged, remained stable, or became more divided. Overall consensus should not erase a different result within a clinically or methodologically important stakeholder group.
Preserve materials that support reproducibility
Where ethics, consent, confidentiality, and journal policies allow, provide the questionnaires, participant instructions, definitions, consensus rules, round history, analysis code or data dictionary, and appropriately anonymized supporting data. These materials help readers understand what participants actually saw and how the final conclusions were produced.
Use our Delphi Study Design and Reporting Checklist while planning the protocol, not only when writing the manuscript. The checklist helps turn later reporting requirements into information that is captured throughout the study.
How Surveylet supports a defensible record
Surveylet supports structured Delphi rounds, participant and stakeholder management, controlled feedback, response tracking, consensus analysis, and analysis-ready exports. The study team remains responsible for defining its methodology, documenting decisions, and interpreting the findings.
Calibrum's Delphi Analysis & Final Report service can help transform the study record and exported results into clear methodology, findings, tables, figures, and practical interpretation.
Plan the report before collecting the data
We can help identify the design, tracking, analysis, and reporting decisions that should be resolved before your Delphi study begins.