Maine et al 1 have published the next step necessary to define the burden of surgically amenable conditions in lowresource settings. 1 Over the last decade, there has been a rapid proliferation of interest in "global surgery," as most recently reflected by the Lancet Commission on Global Surgery. 2 Plaguing this movement has been a lack of robust, on-the-ground epidemiologic data describing the true denominator: the number of people who might benefit from surgical intervention-the unmet surgical need.Previous studies attempted to answer this question using operative case logs and self-reported surveys of the general population and health practitioners. [3][4][5][6][7] The Lancet Commission pursued the denominator through mathematical modeling, but based the models on proxy measures. 2 Consequently, published results of these investigational methods must be interpreted in the context of considerable study design limitations. In an attempt to mitigate some of these limitations, Maine et al 1 have used a cross-sectional cluster surveillance tool with physical examinations performed by trained clinicians. 1 Using on-the-ground assessors to truly define the burden of disease in a community is certainly a step in the right direction.Although progressive in their approach, the authors have not achieved a true denominator. Methodologically, they have