Historically, the surgical literature was defined based on a predominance of case series, case reports, and anecdotal experiences of surgical investigators. But over the past several decades, the methodologic quality of surgical research has significantly improved, concurrent with increasing use of more robust study designs.1 Contemporary evidence published to support the use of surgical interventions now routinely comes from randomized clinical trials, meta-analyses, qualitative studies, cost-effectiveness analyses, and comparative effectiveness research studies, to name a few. Many of these study designs and advanced methodologies were highlighted in the most recent Guide to Statistics and Methods series published in JAMA Surgery this past year.2
Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.
Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.
Err on the side of full disclosure.
If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.
Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.
Brooke BS, Ghaferi AA, Kibbe MR. Effective Use of Reporting Guidelines to Improve the Quality of Surgical Research. JAMA Surg. 2021;156(6):515–516. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2021.0519
Monkeypox Resource Center
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.