Turning a Single-Center Retrospective Study Into a Publishable Article: A Practical Guide for Surgical Authors

Abstract

Single-center retrospective studies remain a common form of surgical scholarship and often reflect careful clinical work addressing real problems. Despite this, many such studies fail to reach publication. The reason is rarely flawed data or poor execution. More often, the work does not move beyond local experience or articulate why its findings matter to surgeons outside the authors’ own institution. This editorial outlines a practical framework for transforming a single-center retrospective study into a publishable article. Key elements include clarifying a focused and clinically relevant research question, defining the study population and time frame transparently, and using standardized outcomes and benchmarks to place results in context. Emphasis is placed on the unique strength of single-center studies: granular detail regarding operative decision making, technical nuance, workflow, and postoperative management that large administrative datasets and multicenter prospective studies often cannot capture. A thorough literature review establishes external validity and scope. When multiple similar retrospective series already exist, authors are encouraged to consider whether a reframed analysis or an updated PRISMA-compliant systematic review would better serve the field. Single-center retrospective studies become publishable when they offer more than results. When thoughtfully framed, they can contribute meaningfully to surgical knowledge and practice. Writing must be directed to practicing surgeons, which is the primary readership of the journal. The submission must emphasize interpretation and application rather than description alone, with a consistent focus on patient care.