Obviously, these are not problems limited to the pulmonary and critical care literature. In 1993, Concato et al1 revealed similar problems in another two leading medical journals, The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine. If such problems occur in journals of undisputed scientific magnitude, they are likely to occur throughout the medical literature. It is incumbent on those who write the articles to use statistical analysis appropriately, honestly, and competently, and to report the methods used without ambiguity. Also, the peer reviewers must demand that a precise but succinct statistical report be included in the manuscripts that are submitted. Finally, the consumer (clinician) must look at all that is written with a jaundiced eye and be sure that conclusions stand on a solid statistical foundation before being applied to patients. Clinicians cannot be statisticians, but they can become solid interpreters of essential statistical methods.