Sir William Osler once stated that "The practice of medicine is an art, based on science. Medicine is a science of uncertainty and an art of probability." 1 While Osler's comment was made in 1893, over a century later it remains true that much variability exists in health care and that this variation in care is thought to contribute to significant waste. To some extent, this variability persists due to a perceived lack of high-quality evidence on which to base treatment decisions. This may be particularly relevant in surgery, where randomized clinical trials (RCTs), considered to provide the highest level of evidence, are difficult to perform.The Cochrane Collaboration, formed by Ian Chalmers and colleagues in 1993, maintains as its mission to create and disseminate up-to-date review of health care interventions to help health care professionals make informed decisions. Cochrane systematic review groups specify strict inclusion criteria that give priority to level 1 clinical evidence and publish a final review in a standardized structured format that makes it simple for the physician to understand the evidence and apply it to clinical practice. Nuyen et al, 2 in their review published this issue of JAMA Facial Plastic Surgery, present what appears to be the first Cochrane-protocol systematic review and meta-analysis investigating preventive antibiotics in rhinoplasty. The publication is an important study demonstrating that pooled data from the included RCTs do not support the use of preventive antibiotic therapy in rhinoplasty.This systematic review will be informative for rhinoplasty surgeons in treatment of patients on an individual level. The evidence on perioperative antibiotic treatment in rhinoplasty is synthesized clearly and should contribute to decreased variability in perioperative antibiotic regimens and decreased waste in rhinoplasty treatment. Furthermore, harm to patients from unnecessary exposure to antibiotics will be mitigated if surgeons modify their practice and limit antibiotic use to the immediate perioperative period for routine rhinoplasty.On a larger scale, the data presented in this systematic review may support performance measure development that can be used for both quality improvement and research. Surgeons can objectively demonstrate quality and support highvalue care by reporting on appropriate antibiotic utilization through a performance measure. By aggregating data in a standard way, rhinoplasty surgeons will support research efforts dependent on standard and systematic data collection. Thus, the result of the statement from the clinical practice guideline 3 may have implications from the individual patient level up to the population level to inform quality-based policy decision making.