Background: There is a discrepancy in the way dystonia is classified in the literature, as articles continue to reference the old criteria or fail to use the 2013 criteria correctly. Methods: We performed a systematic review of the dystonia literature and distinguished between studies that use the new classification correctly, made errors in implementing the new classification, or continued to use the old classification methods. Results: Of the 990 articles included in the study, 59.8% used the classification correctly, 31.3% used mixed terminology, and 8.9% continued to use the old classification. Articles relating to surgery were significantly less likely to use the new classification correctly. There is an upward trend in the annual rate of articles properly referencing the new classification. Conclusions: The 2013 classification has been well received in scientific literature, and more studies are adapting to its use.