Introduction: The quality of reporting of neuroimaging methods for studies of cerebral small vessel disease is unknown. We systematically reviewed studies of MRI white matter hyperintensities (WMH) of vascular origin to determine the frequency of reporting of key aspects of neuroimaging methods, and whether reporting varied by sample size, study design or journal impact factor. Methods: Three raters independently reviewed 100 consecutive papers reporting WMH severity, either as a primary outcome or covariate, to abstract 50 study characteristics based on the published STRIVE standards (Wardlaw et al Lancet Neurol 2013). Final determinations were made by consensus. An aggregate quality score (range 0-11) was created by adding one point for reporting of each of 11 key characteristics (Table). Spearman correlation or chi-square test, as appropriate, were used to test associations with quality score. Results: Papers were published between 2009 and 2013 with journal impact factors ranging from 0.56 to 15.3, with cohort (79%) and case control (21%) studies represented. Quantitative computational methods were used in 28 studies. MR field strength, MRI sequence types, type of WMH measurement method, blinding and number of raters were reported frequently, but reporting of other characteristics was inconsistent (Table). Study quality score was not correlated with journal impact factor, sample size or cohort study design. Conclusions: There is inconsistent reporting of neuroimaging methods in the small vessel disease imaging literature. Increased adherence to published reporting standards, such as the STRIVE criteria, may facilitate more objective peer review of submitted manuscripts and increase the reproducibility of published results. More work is needed to facilitate adoption of standards and checklists by authors, reviewers and editors.