Leading nutrition organizations are using systematic reviews (SRs) to develop evidence-based nutrition and research agendas, revise dietary guidelines, formulate public health policies and support dietetic practice guidelines with the goal of improving patient outcomes and practitioner effectiveness. The Office of Dietary Supplements (ODS) in collaboration with other institutes and centers of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) uses SRs to identify research needs and set research priorities. In 2001, the American Dietetic Association (ADA) began carrying out SRs on a wide range of nutrition-related diseases. Evidence-based guidelines are being developed to provide an additional tool for food and nutrition professionals to apply the best research results to their practice, with the goal of improving patient outcomes and practitioner effectiveness. In addition, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has developed a draft guidance document of an evidence-based review system to evaluate publicly available scientific evidence for health claims on food and supplement products. The complexity of relationships between nutrition and health and the lack of widely accepted guidance on how to address nutrition issues have impeded the transfer of evidence-based methodologies from medicine to the field of nutrition. While the concepts and methods of evidence-based medicine can be applied to nutrition questions, there are important differences between evaluations of drug therapies and nutrient-related health outcomes. For SRs of medical interventions, there exist checklists to improve SR reporting quality (i.e., clarity and transparent reporting of SR methods and results) such as MOOSE (Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) and QUOROM (Quality Of Reporting Of Meta-analyses). While these represent consensus guidelines to improve the quality of SRs in general, they do not provide guidance for reporting or analyses of variables unique to the field of nutrition. Standardized guidance for researchers conducting SRs on nutrition-related topics could benefit the users of these reviews. Our aim was to examine the reporting quality of existing SRs linking micronutrients and health outcomes, and identify areas for improvement. We also performed exploratory analyses to evaluate factors that may be associated with reporting quality, such as the designs of primary studies (interventional versus observational studies), years of publications, methods of evidence syntheses (meta-analyses or qualitative synthesis), and impact factors of journals that published these reviews.