[Abstract]Expert consensus serves as a crucial supplement to clinical practice guidelines, offering guidance when evidence is insufficient or controversial. However, it often suffers from low reporting quality, incomplete content, and lack of transparency in processes. Reporting guideline provides a standardized framework for medical research documentation by prescribing content requirements and structural formats. As reporting guidelines for different guideline documents, the RIGHT (Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare) checklist emphasizes evidence quality assessment and recommendation formulation, while the ACCORD (ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document) checklist focuses on standardizing consensus processes - each with distinct strengths and limitations. To address these gaps, this study proposes an integrated framework (TIMER-DO) to compensate for the deficiencies of individual checklists and enhance the reporting quality of consensus statements. Future efforts should develop consensus-specific methodological quality assessment tools, streamline and optimize reporting guideline, strengthen the dissemination and personnel training initiatives for consensus reporting standards, and enhance the global impact and recognition of consensus documents.