The ecologic study design is routinely used by epidemiologists in spite of its limitations. It is presently unknown how well the challenges of the design are dealt with in epidemiologic research. The purpose of this bibliometric review was to critically evaluate the characteristics, statistical methods, and reporting of results of modern cross-sectional ecologic papers. A search through 6 major epidemiology journals identified all cross-sectional ecologic studies published since January 1, 2000. A total of 125 articles met the inclusion requirements and were assessed via common evaluative criteria. It was found that a considerable number of cross-sectional ecologic studies use unreliable methods or contain statistical oversights; most investigators who adjusted their outcomes for age or sex did so improperly (64%), statistical validity was a potential issue for 20% of regression models, and simple linear regression was the most common analytic approach (31%). Many authors omitted important information when discussing the ecologic nature of their study (31%), the choice of study design (58%), and the susceptibility of their research to the ecological fallacy (49%). These results suggest that there is a need for an international set of guidelines that standardizes reporting on ecologic studies. Additionally, greater attention should be given to the relevant biostatistical literature.