SUMMARY:Evidence-based medicine (EBM) employs the best available evidence in a particular time and context to solve specific clinical problems. This method of practicing medicine has been adopted by most of the disciplines involved in medical training; however, morphology appears to remain beyond this paradigm. The first step in evidence-based practice based on morphology is to recognize the types of studies being conducted with regard to morphology, followed by the assessment of the level of evidence that they provide, which is the purpose of this study. We designed a bibliometric study, in which journals in the Master Journal List of Thomson Reuters, selected using the keywords "Morphology" or "Anatomy," available between 2007 and 2008, with access to full text in electronic version, whose languages were English and Spanish, and which only considered studies on human morphology, were included. We analyzed a total of 790 articles, of which 93.1% were descriptive, 6.5% were analytical, and 0.4% were experimental design types. According to the stage of the study, most of the articles (94.8%) accounted for prevalence and differential diagnosis studies, concentrating on numerous designs such cross-section, which gave complex evidence (1c). The use of these methodologies for the systematic morphological knowledge allowed us to widen our research to generate clinically useful recommendations or merely a teaching approach based on the systematic morphological knowledge available.