Skip to main content

A checklist for assessing the methodological quality of concurrent tES-fMRI Studies (ContES Checklist): a consensus study and stateme

Ekhtiari, Hamed and Ghobadi-Azbari, Peyman and Thielscher, Axel and Antal, Andrea and Li, Lucia M. and Shereen, A Duke and Cabral-Calderin, Yuranny and Keeser, Daniel and Bergmann, Til Ole and Jamil, Asif and Violante, Ines R. and Almeida, Jorge and Meinzer, Marcus and Siebner, Hartwig R. and Woods, Adam J. and Stagg, Charlotte J. and Abend, Rany and Antonenko, Daria and Auer, Tibor and Bächinger, Marc and Baeken, Chris and Barron, Helen C. and Chase, Henry W. and Crinion, Jenny and Datta, Abhishek and Davis, Matthew H. and Ebrahimi, Mohsen and Esmaeilpour, Zeinab and Falcone, Brian and Fiori, Valentina and Ghodratitoostani, Iman and Gilam, Gadi and Grabner, Roland H. and Greenspan, Joel D. and Groen, Georg and Hartwigsen, Gesa and Hauser, Tobias U. and Herrmann, Christoph S. and Juan, Chi-Hung and Krekelberg, Bart and Lefebvre, Stephanie and Liew, Sook-Lei and Madsen, Kristoffer H. and Mahdavifar-Khayati, Rasoul and Malmir, Nastaran and Marangolo, Paola and Martin, Andrew K. and Meeker, Timothy J. and Ardabili, Hossein Mohaddes and Moisa, Marius and Momi, Davide and Mulyana, Beni and Opitz, Alexander and Orlov, Natasza and Ragert, Patrick and Ruff, Christian C. and Ruffini, Giulio and Ruttorf, Michaela and Sangchooli, Arshiya and Schellhorn, Klaus and Schlaug, Gottfried and Sehm, Bernhard and Soleimani, Ghazaleh and Tavakoli, Hosna and Thompson, Benjamin and Timmann, Dagmar and Tsuchiyagaito, Aki and Ulrich, Martin and Vosskuhl, Johannes and Weinrich, Christiane A. and Zare-Bidoky, Mehran and Zhang, Xiaochu and Zoefel, Benedikt and Nitsche, Michael A. and Bikson, Marom (2021) A checklist for assessing the methodological quality of concurrent tES-fMRI Studies (ContES Checklist): a consensus study and stateme. [Preprint] (Submitted) (doi:10.1101/2020.12.23.20248579) (The full text of this publication is not currently available from this repository. You may be able to access a copy if URLs are provided) (KAR id:99912)

The full text of this publication is not currently available from this repository. You may be able to access a copy if URLs are provided.
Official URL:


Background Low intensity transcranial electrical stimulation (tES), including alternating or direct current stimulation (tACS or tDCS), applies weak electrical stimulation to modulate the activity of brain circuits. Integration of tES with concurrent functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) allows for the mapping of neural activity during neuromodulation, supporting causal studies of both brain function and tES effects. Methodological aspects of tES-fMRI studies underpin the results, and reporting them in appropriate detail is required for reproducibility and interpretability. Despite the growing number of published reports, there are no consensus-based checklists for disclosing methodological details of concurrent tES-fMRI studies.

Objective To develop a consensus-based checklist of reporting standards for concurrent tES-fMRI studies to support methodological rigor, transparency, and reproducibility (ContES Checklist).

Methods A two-phase Delphi consensus process was conducted by a steering committee (SC) of 13 members and 49 expert panelists (EP) through the International Network of the tES-fMRI (INTF) Consortium. The process began with a circulation of a preliminary checklist of essential items and additional recommendations, developed by the SC based on a systematic review of 57 concurrent tES-fMRI studies. Contributors were then invited to suggest revisions or additions to the initial checklist. After the revision phase, contributors rated the importance of the 17 essential items and 42 additional recommendations in the final checklist. The state of methodological transparency within the 57 reviewed concurrent tES-fMRI studies was then assessed using the checklist.

Results Experts refined the checklist through the revision and rating phases, leading to a checklist with three categories of essential items and additional recommendations: (1) technological factors, (2) safety and noise tests, and (3) methodological factors. The level of reporting of checklist items varied among the 57 concurrent tES-fMRI papers, ranging from 24% to 76%. On average, 53% of checklist items were reported in a given article.

Conclusions Use of the ContES checklist is expected to enhance the methodological reporting quality of future concurrent tES-fMRI studies, and increase methodological transparency and reproducibility.

Item Type: Preprint
DOI/Identification number: 10.1101/2020.12.23.20248579
Refereed: No
Other identifier:
Name of pre-print platform: medRxiv
Uncontrolled keywords: Transcranial electrical stimulation (tES); Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI); Concurrent tES fMRI; Consensus statement; ContES checklist
Subjects: B Philosophy. Psychology. Religion > BF Psychology
Divisions: Divisions > Division of Human and Social Sciences > School of Psychology
Depositing User: Andrew Martin
Date Deposited: 06 Feb 2023 09:51 UTC
Last Modified: 26 Sep 2023 11:41 UTC
Resource URI: (The current URI for this page, for reference purposes)
Martin, Andrew K.:
  • Depositors only (login required):

Total unique views for this document in KAR since July 2020. For more details click on the image.