COMMENTS FROM THE EDITORS

HAS THE PENDULUM SWUNG TOO FAR?

In this issue of the Journal there are new guidelinesfor the use of statistics in prospective manuscripts

submitted to the Journal. They are in agreementwith the “Uniform Requirements for ManuscriptsSubmitted to Biomedical Journals” published in theAnnals of Internal Medicine.

Biostatistics has become an ever more importantcomponent of biomedical research and, in the past,statisticians have criticized journals for lack of sta-tistical rigor. Thus, in January, the Journal initiatedguidelines that were to aid the author and expeditethe review process. Some authors have perceivedthem as too rigid and coercive. In light of thesecomments, we have rewritten the guidelines with thehope that they will be more “user friendly,” still

maintaining statistical standards. We also recognizethe unique aspect of surgical research in whichrandomization is difficult and obviously nonblinded.Numbers are often small both in clinical trials and inanimal experiments where availability or cost canbecome prohibitive when larger numbers are de-manded in order to meet the stringent requirementsof some biostatisticians.

Biostatistical review remains essential to elicit thetrue differences in results between two or moregroups. It will be our aim to find the pathwaybetween the extremes so that authors and readerswill have reasonable confidence in the conclusionspresented without going through a biostatistical“inquisition.” We will try to bring the pendulumback to center.

Eugene H. Blackstone, MDJohn A. Waldhausen, MD

Copyright © 1998 by Mosby, Inc.0022-5223/98 $5.00 1 0 12/1/91665

1 8 6