Considerable attention has been drawn to poor reproducibility in the biomedical literature. One explanation is inadequate reporting of statistical methods by authors and inadequate assessment of statistical reporting and methods during peer review. In this narrative review, we examine scientific studies of several well-publicized efforts to improve statistical reporting. We also review several retrospective assessments of the impact of these efforts. These studies show that instructions to authors and statistical checklists are not sufficient; no findings suggested that either improves the quality of statistical methods and reporting. Second, even basic statistics, such as power analyses, are frequently missing or incorrectly performed. Third, statistical review is needed for all papers that involve data analysis. A consistent finding in the studies was that nonstatistical reviewers (eg, “scientific reviewers”) and journal editors generally poorly assess statistical quality. We finish by discussing our experience with statistical review at Anesthesia & Analgesia from 2006 to 2016.