Case reports (CRs) are essential in physiotherapy, yet reporting remains heterogeneous and insufficiently standardised. The 2013 CAse REport (CARE) guideline improves transparency but lacks physiotherapy-specific detail. This study aimed to develop a consensus-driven extension of the CARE reporting guideline to support structured reporting of physiotherapy CRs, encompassing physiotherapy-specific assessments and interventions.

An e-Delphi consensus process study following the ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document (ACCORD) guidelines.

Online.

Forty-four international experts in physiotherapy practice, research and education, along with six core committee members.

Experts objectively scored items for relevance (5-point Likert scale) and provided open-ended responses for each item of the drafts. Scores and responses were analysed to facilitate iterative refinement of the Physiotherapy CAse REport (PhyCARE) reporting guidelines. Consensus was predetermined at over 70% agreement.

Round 1 had the majority of items achieving ≥70% agreement, except two items that did not meet the threshold were revised and replaced with an alternative. Five new items addressing physiotherapy-specific reporting needs were added, and 10 items were relocated. In round 2, all 35 items across 13 domains achieved 84%–100% agreement. The nomenclature of one domain was revised to ‘Outcomes and Follow-up’. Following two e-Delphi rounds, consensus was achieved, and suggestions from online meeting, piloting led to item rephrasing, after which the PhyCARE guidelines were finalised.

The PhyCARE guidelines have the potential to provide a physiotherapy-specific extension of CARE to support structured, transparent and reproducible reporting of physiotherapy CRs.

Temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) are a prevalent group of musculoskeletal conditions affecting the temporomandibular joint, associated structures and masticatory muscles. The internet has become a primary source of health information for many patients; however, the readability, reliability, content and quality of online information on TMDs vary widely. A comprehensive synthesis of the characteristics and evaluation methods of such content is currently lacking.

This scoping review will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and be reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist. Peer-reviewed primary and secondary studies assessing online information on TMDs will be included if they report on readability, reliability, content or quality. Eligible information sources include publicly available websites, videos and social media; discussion forums and printed materials will be excluded. No language, date or geographical restrictions will be applied. A three-step search strategy will be implemented across PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL, followed by citation tracking. Screening will be conducted independently by two reviewers using Rayyan. Data will be extracted with a pilot-tested charting tool and synthesised narratively and descriptively in tabular and graphical formats.

As this study will only use data from publicly available sources, ethical approval is not required. Findings will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal, conference presentations and professional networks, with the aim of guiding the development of accessible and reliable digital resources for individuals seeking information on TMDs.

This protocol has been prospectively registered on the Open Science Framework (OSF): https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/TAH7K.