Systematic reviews have grown in importance for influencing clinical practice and policy; however, little is known regarding the reporting features and quality of SRs of interventions to enhance vaccination coverage in various contexts. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reporting quality of systematic reviews of interventions aiming at increasing vaccination coverage using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guideline. Two authors independently screened the search results, evaluated study eligibility, and gathered data from eligible SRs using a PRISMA-derived 27-item data collection form. Discussion and consensus were used to address discrepancies in review evaluations. This study includes 57 reviews, with a mean proportion of applicable PRISMA criteria satisfied across all studies of 66% and a median compliance of 70%. After the PRISMA statement was issued in 2009, 39 of the 57 reviews were published. The highest levels of compliance were found in areas relating to the “explanation of rationale,” “description of eligibility criteria,” “synthesis of findings,” and “providing a broad interpretation of the results.” The categories “describing summary of evidence,” “describing indication of review process and registration,” and “describing outcomes of risk of bias across studies” had the lowest compliance.

The general reporting quality of systematic reviews of strategies to increase vaccination coverage needs to be greatly improved. There is also a need for more study on potential impediments to compliance and methods to increase compliance with the PRISMA guidelines.