MD VS DO

[jqueb29]

This is true. Still, for most people it's easier to get into those schools than an md school. Being oos really hurts chances at those places

*i got into azcom and ccom, had a chance at an md school but blew the interview. I'd absolutely say it's easier to get a do acceptance than an md one. I think do advocates are wasting their time and credibility arguing otherwise.

Yeah I would definitely agree with this. My first cycle I only applied MD and didn't get any acceptances. 2nd time around, I applied to many DOs in addition to MDs. AZCOM was my first acceptance almost immediately in October, and I got accepted to a total of 6 DO schools by the start of December. The 6th one was IS and my top DO choice, so I cancelled the remaining 7 DO IIs I had. I interviewed at 2 MD schools and finally got accepted to my top choice overall in May.

So to summarize: applied to 13 DO schools (12 OOS and 1 IS), invited to interview at all 13 and accepted at all 6 I decided to interview at; applied to 14 MD schools (13 OOS and 1 IS), only got 2 IIs and 1 acceptance. This was all with very average MD stats (little under a 3.8, 32 MCAT). MD is undeniably harder to get accepted into than DO is. This is not a bash or an insult; I have equal respect for DOs. Just because it's easier to get into a DO school doesn't mean it's easier to actually graduate from one. It's honestly only easier to get in because it's kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy; for the most part, if you have high stats and the choice between MD or DO, almost everybody is going to choose MD. I know I personally would have worked just as hard and got just as good an education at a DO school, but I and most other people in the same spot choose MD simply because we don't want the DO "stigma" the rest of our lives. I don't think the DO stigma is justified, nor am I remotely prejudiced against them myself, but the reality is that a great deal of other people are, so for this reason most people with the choice pick MD, leaving DO spots for people with lower stats and no MD acceptances. But not everybody is this way. The best doctor I know is a DO who had his pick of MD schools but chose his local DO school because, as a 30-something nontrad, he didn't want to move his wife and kids. If you are a licensed physician, whether MD or DO, you are one of the more intelligent people on this earth and have earned my full respect.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Officer Farva]

Yeah I would definitely agree with this. My first cycle I only applied MD and didn't get any acceptances. 2nd time around, I applied to many DOs in addition to MDs. AZCOM was my first acceptance almost immediately in October, and I got accepted to a total of 6 DO schools by the start of December. The 6th one was IS and my top DO choice, so I cancelled the remaining 7 DO IIs I had. I interviewed at 2 MD schools and finally got accepted to my top choice overall in May.

So to summarize: applied to 13 DO schools (12 OOS and 1 IS), invited to interview at all 13 and accepted at all 6 I decided to interview at; applied to 14 MD schools (13 OOS and 1 IS), only got 2 IIs and 1 acceptance. This was all with very average MD stats (little under a 3.8, 32 MCAT). MD is undeniably harder to get accepted into than DO is. This is not a bash or an insult; I have equal respect for DOs. Just because it's easier to get into a DO school doesn't mean it's easier to actually graduate from one. It's honestly only easier to get in because it's kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy; for the most part, if you have high stats and the choice between MD or DO, almost everybody is going to choose MD. I know I personally would have worked just as hard and got just as good an education at a DO school, but I and most other people in the same spot choose MD simply because we don't want the DO "stigma" the rest of our lives. I don't think the DO stigma is justified, nor am I remotely prejudiced against them myself, but the reality is that a great deal of other people are, so for this reason most people with the choice pick MD, leaving DO spots for people with lower stats and no MD acceptances. But not everybody is this way. The best doctor I know is a DO who had his pick of MD schools but chose his local DO school because, as a 30-something nontrad, he didn't want to move his wife and kids. If you are a licensed physician, whether MD or DO, you are one of the more intelligent people on this earth and have earned my full respect.

Same, highest respect for both DO's and MD's. I don't care where my doctors got their degrees from, just that they cure me and are geniuses.

Why do DO schools seem to have higher post-II acceptances than MD programs. Because we all have that friend who went to 3-5 MD interviews but gets in nowhere.

 

[jqueb29]

Same, highest respect for both DO's and MD's. I don't care where my doctors got their degrees from, just that they cure me and are geniuses.

Why do DO schools seem to have higher post-II acceptances than MD programs. Because we all have that friend who went to 3-5 MD interviews but gets in nowhere.

DO schools have higher post-II acceptances than MD programs because like I was saying, most people with the choice between the two end up picking MD. So just a very simplified example, if a school has 150 seats and interviews 300 people, it can initially only have a 50% acceptance rate. But if all of those first 150 people choose to attend a different school, then they can accept the remaining 150 people they interviewed but didn't accept, giving them a 100% acceptance rate.

For instance, I remember seeing somewhere that AZCOM has one of the higher post-II acceptance rates, which sort of seems counterintuitive since they also have some of the highest average stats for a DO school. But then it makes sense if you think about how, with average stats that high, many of the people AZCOM accepts are also going to have a great chance at at least 1 MD school. So then you end up with a ton of people each cycle who get accepted at AZCOM, then later get in to an IS MD school and choose to attend that instead of AZCOM. This allows schools to offer the same seat to several successive people, resulting in a higher post-II acceptance rate than those MD schools where, if people are accepted there, it is more likely to be their top choice/best available option.

 

[Dr. Death]

This is true. Still, for most people it's easier to get into those schools than an md school. Being oos really hurts chances at those places

*i got into azcom and ccom, had a chance at an md school but blew the interview. I'd absolutely say it's easier to get a do acceptance than an md one. I think do advocates are wasting their time and credibility arguing otherwise.

Another confounding factor making it easier to get into a DO school is that only a couple are public. For instance I live in a state where there are roughly 550 med school applicants and our state MD has 100 IS seats. My stats aren't good enough to reach up to the private MD's with no IS preference (ivies, hopkins, mayo etc.) but if I had an equal shot at the Kentucky or Florida MD schools I would be a shoo-in. The schools bridging the gap are the private DO schools so most med school applicants in my state end up going DO.

 

[DNC127]

Another confounding factor making it easier to get into a DO school is that only a couple are public. For instance I live in a state where there are roughly 550 med school applicants and our state MD has 100 IS seats. My stats aren't good enough to reach up to the private MD's with no IS preference (ivies, hopkins, mayo etc.) but if I had an equal shot at the Kentucky or Florida MD schools I would be a shoo-in. The schools bridging the gap are the private DO schools so most med school applicants in my state end up going DO.

Utah problems.

 

[Dustbowl12]

DO>MD

 

[virchow?]

DO>MD

NUH UH MD>DO BCUZ XYZ NA NAH NA NAH BOO BOO

...sorry, flashback to third grade.

 

[Dustbowl12]

NUH UH MD>DO BCUZ XYZ NA NAH NA NAH BOO BOO

...sorry, flashback to third grade.

this made me spit water out of my mouth laughing

 

[rilte4]

...sorry, flashback to third grade.

Back when we knew how to squash the beef far more effectively than we do now

 

[Theseus]

There should probably be a popup window before a thread is posted that says, "Is this post about DO vs MD?" Options: Yes/No. If yes, refer to the sticky. That way we won't keep seeing the same thing coming up every two days.

 

[AlteredScale]

There should probably be a popup window before a thread is posted that says, "Is this post about DO vs MD?" Options: Yes/No. If yes, refer to the sticky. That way we won't keep seeing the same thing coming up every two days.

Typing MD vs DO for a thread should send you straight into the depths of reddit.

 

[Sgucci]

Both will get you to the same place with hard work. People who are against DO need to swallow their pride and open up their minds.

 

[P0ke]

DOs and MDs are both licensed physicians. That said, here are some facts:
DO students have lower stats than their MD counterparts. Many people don't know what a DO is and you'll be explaining to them what a DO is for the rest of your life (or until there's a massive public education campaign about DOs). Most people know what an MD is.

 

[Theseus]

DOs and MDs are both licensed physicians. That said, here are some facts:
DO students have lower stats than their MD counterparts. Many people don't know what a DO is and you'll be explaining to them what a DO is for the rest of your life (or until there's a massive public education campaign about DOs). Most people know what an MD is.

Worked with a few DOs in the hospital. Topic never really came up. One patient thought DO was another way of saying Doctor on the ID badge and/or the lab coat.

 

[deleted731525]

CCOM 29.5 AZCOM 30 DMU 28.8 from their websites
NYMC 31 Rowan 29 FSU 28 so okay it's comparable
GPA is hard to compare as DO schools allow for grade replacement. But I remember 3.6 being the 10th percentile for a lot of the places I applied to although that was applicant stats not matriculant and that was a few years ago.

Honestly after a certain point do undergrad stats even matter? The whole point of GPA/MCAT is to act as a correlate for medical school and USMLE performance. By the time you apply for residency, you have step 1 scores and med school grades, so any inferences made about GPA/MCAT based on your school should be meaningless. I was under the impression the main reason any "bias" exists is because of the inconsistent nature of the quality of 3rd/4th year rotations at many DO schools.

 

[deleted731525]

Better doctors generally know more and people who know more test better. It's not like being bad at tests is a prerequisite for bring a good doc

Lets be honest though. Grades/MCAT are the easy part of MD admissions. DO schools are easier on applicants who dont have a plethora of ECs but have decent grades.

 

[Theseus]

Honestly after a certain point do undergrad stats even matter? The whole point of GPA/MCAT is to act as a correlate for medical school and USMLE performance. By the time you apply for residency, you have step 1 scores and med school grades, so any inferences made about GPA/MCAT based on your school should be meaningless. I was under the impression the main reason any "bias" exists is because of the inconsistent nature of the quality of 3rd/4th year rotations at many DO schools.

Don't forget research opportunities.

 

[0ncogene]

Don't forget research opportunities.

I agree with this. I would say research opportunities is the biggest difference; MD institutions just have a lot more resources. But there is not a lot of difference otherwise. I've rotated at big teaching hospitals (UCLA, UC Davis, Stanford) and at some smaller teaching hospitals my DO school is affiliated with, and there really is no significant difference in terms of the quality of the rotations.

 

[0ncogene]

for MD vs DO: Just get into whichever school (MD or DO) you can with your application, then decide base on location, cost, and specialty of choice.

You will have to work really hard during medical school regardless of wether you choose a DO or MD school. Wanting to go into ortho is not easier as an MD or DO. You will have to work hard to shine on rotations and obtain high board scores (from experience, scoring >250 on the USMLE is as hard as >600 on the COMLEX ).

 

[Roxas]

Thank heaven this thread got bumped. How else would we know anything about MD vs DO?

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

Thank heaven this thread got bumped. How else would we know anything about MD vs DO?

Your avatar often reminds me that an ideal escape from everyday life is sitting inside my Xbox One.

 

[Roxas]

Your avatar often reminds me that an ideal escape from everyday life is sitting inside my Xbox One.

lol that's exactly why I have it

 

[Crayola227]

I thought these threads essentially became unallowed on the site

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

I thought these threads essentially became unallowed on the site

We should convert all MD vs DO threads into video game threads.

Are you down for a heist?

 

[0ncogene]

Thank heaven this thread got bumped. How else would we know anything about MD vs DO?

lol sorry. I was just browsing around SDN. Didn't notice I was bumping a relatively old thread

 

[Mansamusa]

Info on MD vs DO:

What's aliopathic medicine?

I'm trying not to be rude, but this isn't a great video... it didn't discuss any of the differences in getting to your goals (some specialties very difficult to match into as DO, etc) and it implies that DO are on equal footing when applying to MD residencies. If we were judging similarities and differences just based on the practice rights after finishing residency than MD= DO= Carib MD= International MD, which we know isn't true. It's not good reasoning to say that since practice rights are the same that the degrees are equivalent when there are important differences that applicants should understand before applying. It's a salespitch where everything is said in a way that is technically true, but leaves out a bunch of caveats.

 

[235009]

What's aliopathic medicine?

I'm trying not to be rude, but this isn't a great video... it didn't discuss any of the differences in getting to your goals (some specialties very difficult to match into as DO, etc) and it implies that DO are on equal footing when applying to MD residencies. If we were judging similarities and differences just based on the practice rights after finishing residency than MD= DO= Carib MD= International MD, which we know isn't true. It's not good reasoning to say that since practice rights are the same that the degrees are equivalent when there are important differences that applicants should understand before applying. It's a salespitch where everything is said in a way that is technically true, but leaves out a bunch of caveats.

The pre-med child in this video has no clue what he's talking about. He makes extremely simplistic statements about something he hasn't even begun to experience yet and then says "anyone who tells you differently is wrong". I guess you just don't know what you don't know.

EDIT: also it took way too many clicks (at least 3) for me to find out that he's a pre-med (it's in the about me section of his blog). Trying to conceal your credentials is always a bad sign.

 

[Ligament]

DOs and MDs are both licensed physicians. That said, here are some facts:
DO students have lower stats than their MD counterparts. Many people don't know what a DO is and you'll be explaining to them what a DO is for the rest of your life (or until there's a massive public education campaign about DOs). Most people know what an MD is.

I entered DO school in 1997. I have needed to explain what a DO is roughly 10 times in my career thus far during work in the midwest and on the west coast. Thats almost 20 years. I am happy to explain it because we are in the minority by far. It is a very reasonable question. Yes it is true you will need to explain your degree, but "explaining to them what a DO is for the rest of your life" sounds like a massive task and in reality it is not.

 

[studentdocftw]

I would say the major difference between MD and DO is the M and the O.

 

[Ligament]

This is good insight. Have you personally encountered some of the attitudes of "DO is easier, and thus less" professionally? or does it seem these are mostly intellectual, forum based arguments?

I have not encountered this attitude professionally, ever. It may be because I was a solid medical trainee and now physician, may be because people talk like this behind my back and I never witness it. But I've never knowingly encountered it. I've not had any problems. The Osteopathic training was a strong asset in my particular subspecialty.

 

[Lost In Transcription]

NO THIS THREAD WAS BUMPED AGAIN


RUN FOR THE HILLS
HIDE YO WIFE
HIDE YO KIDS

 

[Ligament]

Last question, do you feel the DOs spend more time in anatomy training? Ive heard from a few DOs in ACGME residencies and they feel they have a slight advantage in this aspect (with OMM, etc). I realize you havent been through a MD program, so no direct comparison exists, but just anecdotally. Thank you!

The hours in anatomy are on the medical school curriculae, so you should refer to that for hard numbers. Yes, OMM was a great advantage for my subspecialty.

 

[tuco's revenge]

This is completely unrelated, but since this thread has been revived, I'll just talk

I think DO is a super cool concept. I recommend everyone to read "Osteopathic Medicine in America" by Norman Gevitz if youre considering DO. Its a great book

You know whats amazing? That my entire life, up until like a year ago, I hadn't even heard of a DO, and I think thats the case with most pre-meds.

I was even looking up future healthcare careers as a sophomore in college and DO didnt even come up once. A college course I took also talked about careers in healthcare, and from that I knew exactly what MD, DC, OD, DDS, JD, RN, PA, and DPT stood for, but DO was NEVER even mentioned.

I think thats because those professionals display their MD, DDS, JD, RN initials loud and proud for all to see, while DOs tend to hide behind the "Dr." title and don't display their initials at all (and they don't necessarily need to anyway because its the same rights as an MD). If I see a family practice clinic and it says "Dr. John Smith"...not "John Smith, MD" I always google the doctor and s/he's usually a DO more often than not. The DO degree is completely socially invisible, and if the AOA actually advertised the DO profession properly to the public, and DOs used their initials more often, DO would have a much more prestigious and well-known place in society and threads like this would need not exist

 

[Lawpy]

This is completely unrelated, but since this thread has been revived, I'll just talk

I think DO is a super cool concept. I recommend everyone to read "Osteopathic Medicine in America" by Norman Gevitz if youre considering DO. Its a great book

You know whats amazing? That my entire life, up until like a year ago, I hadn't even heard of a DO, and I think thats the case with most pre-meds.

I was even looking up future healthcare careers as a sophomore in college and DO didnt even come up once. A college course I took also talked about careers in healthcare, and from that I knew exactly what MD, DC, OD, DDS, JD, RN, PA, and DPT stood for, but DO was NEVER even mentioned.

I think thats because those professionals display their MD, DDS, JD, RN initials loud and proud for all to see, while DOs tend to hide behind the "Dr." title and don't display their initials at all (and they don't necessarily need to anyway because its the same rights as an MD). If I see a family practice clinic and it says "Dr. John Smith"...not "John Smith, MD" I always google the doctor and s/he's usually a DO more often than not. The DO degree is completely socially invisible, and if the AOA actually advertised the DO profession properly to the public, and DOs used their initials more often, DO would have a much more prestigious and well-known place in society and threads like this would need not exist

But the underlying issue is we don't know what osteopathic medicine really means. There is a DO identity crisis going on, and a prominent question is what makes the DO degree so unique that MDs can't do whatever DOs are practicing (i.e. why can't MDs practice OMM? And if they can, what makes DOs so unique that they have their own degree, own accreditation body, own residencies, own board exams, own medical school application system etc.?)

 

[tuco's revenge]

But the underlying issue is we don't know what osteopathic medicine really means. There is a DO identity crisis going on, and a prominent question is what makes the DO degree so unique that MDs can't do whatever DOs are practicing (i.e. why can't MDs practice OMM? And if they can, what makes DOs so unique that they have their own degree, own accreditation body, own residencies, own board exams, own medical school application system etc.?)

I agree. DOs do have an identity crisis. It used to be called "Doctor of Osteopathy", but they realized that most people don't view "osteopathy" as encompassing osteopathy + prescribing drugs + performing surgeries. osteopathy in other countries are just manual therapists (looked down upon as "quacks" by a lot of people). The title truthfully doesn't even make sense for a fully licensed medical physician (what does a psychiatrist or brain surgeon have anything to do with osteopathy?). Then they changed it to "Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine" in an attempt to define Osteopathic Medicine as "osteopathy + medicine + surgery" and its still not working.

In literature, the terms osteopathy and osteopathic medicine are interchangeable, just as how homeopathy and homeopathic medicine are used interchangeably. For most outsiders, "osteopathic medicine" still strictly refers to OMM. Nothing has changed in the DO identity, and nothing will change if they don't find a new definition and meaning for themselves.

The AOA licenses neurosurgeons for gods sake, and yet their entire website is full of articles and anecdotes talking about cranial massage is good, how manipulation is great, how holistic DOs are because they use these therapies.....and it honestly makes no sense. The AOA does not advertise DOs as surgeons and physicians...it advertises DOs primarily as some kind of alternative medical practice (and they mention in passing...oh and by the way, DOs can prescribe drugs too. did you know?). I agree with you about the identity crisis


But at the end of the day, who cares? You become a fully licensed doctor in the best country in the world

 

[libertyyne]

Here is an honest question. Is there any quality evidence that shows that OMM is efficacious save for a handful of indications? Most of the DOs I know state that they infact do not use OMM. Why even bother to teach the stuff if most of the practitioners wont use it, or there is little evidence to support its use? If it is efficacious why not teach Primary Care MDs as well since they probably would see similar conditions where it would be efficacious.

If all DOs were offered to be converted to MD credentials would they take it?


One thing that is obvious though, DOs tend to be more chill. They come off relaxed, approachable and personable on average compared to MDs. But that may be my perception which =/= fact.

 

[Doctor_Strange]

Here is an honest question. Is there any quality evidence that shows that OMM is efficacious save for a handful of indications? Most of the DOs I know state that they infact do not use OMM. Why even bother to teach the stuff if most of the practitioners wont use it, or there is little evidence to support its use? If it is efficacious why not teach Primary Care MDs as well since they probably would see similar conditions where it would be efficacious.

If all DOs were offered to be converted to MD credentials would they take it?


One thing that is obvious though, DOs tend to be more chill. They come off relaxed, approachable and personable on average compared to MDs. But that may be my perception which =/= fact.

There is evidence show OMM is more efficacious, or at worst similar to standard of care. There are also systematic reviews that show the efficacy and significance of OMM as well.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199911043411903#t=abstract

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0708333#t=abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25175885

But, there are studies that are inconclusive as well: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22182954

Thus, OMM is an evidence-based treatment, but does not equally help all patients the same way. Personally, I view OMM as a potential alternative means of therapy if the standard of care is ineffective. However, I know many people who swear by the benefit of OMM, as in it dramatically improved the quality of health for them.

 

[libertyyne]

There is evidence show OMM is more efficacious, or at worst similar to standard of care. There are also systematic reviews that show the efficacy and significance of OMM as well.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199911043411903#t=abstract

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0708333#t=abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25175885

But, there are studies that are inconclusive as well: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22182954

Thus, OMM is an evidence-based treatment, but does not equally help all patients the same way. Personally, I view OMM as a potential alternative means of therapy if the standard of care is ineffective. However, I know many people who swear by the benefit of OMM, as in it dramatically improved the quality of health for them.

The first link you provide says OMM is efficacious for the treatment of lowerback pain. -

Link 2 says nothing about OMM.

Link 3 says is a systematic review that uses the study from link one to make the same point.


I was under the impression that OMM has a larger swath of indications esposed by DOs than just lower back pain. Also lowerback pain is tricky to treat and study. However

http://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h444

This says it may be partially pyschosomatic.

http://www.manualtherapyjournal.com/article/S1356-689X(07)00035-5/abstract


Also If I may add the first study doesnt have a control arm. I know there is some data running around regarding that just bed rest may be efficacious.

That being said, it seems crazy that people would devote so much time during medical school to OMM if it only has one evidence based indication.

 

[Doctor_Strange]

The first link you provide says OMM is efficacious for the treatment of lowerback pain. -

Link 2 says nothing about OMM.

Link 3 says is a systematic review that infact uses the study from link one to make the same point.


I was under the impression that OMM has a larger swath of indications esposed by DOs than just lower back pain. Also lowerback pain is tricky to treat and study. However

http://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h444

This says it may be partially pyschosomatic.

http://www.manualtherapyjournal.com/article/S1356-689X(07)00035-5/abstract


Also If I may add the first study doesnt have a control arm. I know there is some data running around regarding that just bed rest may be efficacious.

That being said, it seems crazy that people would devote so much time during medical school to OMM if it only has one evidence based indication.

Yeah, I am too lazy to find the forum on Link 2 but tl;dr is the OMT can be used as an alternative therapy for people who don't receive any benefit from the procedure in Link 2.

I also don't think there is anything "crazy" about learning OMM. It certainly is more applicable in some specialities more so than others and I would prefer less than 200 hours of training to learn OMM, but there is enough evidence out there to show it is effiacious.

If you are as honestly curious as you appear, then I encourage you to search the literature further, search SDN, and seek out DO professionals to either ask them yourself or shadow one.

Good Luck!

 

[libertyyne]

Yeah, I am too lazy to find the forum on Link 2 but tl;dr is the OMT can be used as an alternative therapy for people who don't receive any benefit from the procedure in Link 2.

I also don't think there is anything "crazy" about learning OMM. It certainly is more applicable in some specialities more so than others and I would prefer less than 200 hours of training to learn OMM, but there is enough evidence out there to show it is effiacious.

If you are as honestly curious as you appear, then I encourage you to search the literature further, search SDN, and seek out DO professionals to either ask them yourself or shadow one.

Good Luck!

I have shadowed some osteopathic physicians and none of them used OMM. I will continue to try and seek some OMM exposure.Thank you. I am genuinely curious.

 

[Psai]

There is evidence show OMM is more efficacious, or at worst similar to standard of care. There are also systematic reviews that show the efficacy and significance of OMM as well.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199911043411903#t=abstract

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0708333#t=abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25175885

But, there are studies that are inconclusive as well: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22182954

Thus, OMM is an evidence-based treatment, but does not equally help all patients the same way. Personally, I view OMM as a potential alternative means of therapy if the standard of care is ineffective. However, I know many people who swear by the benefit of OMM, as in it dramatically improved the quality of health for them.

"We found no difference in clinical outcome between standard care and osteopathic care among patients with low back pain of at least three weeks in duration."

Not sure where you're getting more efficacious or similar. It's for one indication, in something that's hard to treat.

 

[libertyyne]

"We found no difference in clinical outcome between standard care and osteopathic care among patients with low back pain of at least three weeks in duration."

Not sure where you're getting more efficacious or similar. It's for one indication, in something that's hard to treat.

Thats the thing, I am having difficulty reconciling the emphasis that DO schools place on OMM in its evidence of efficacy. It seems like the only reason it is emphasized is to show that they are different. Doing something for that reason and then espousing that as better for patients seems contradictory. Therefore my question as to why spend over 100 hours in training and have questions asking about it on board exams.

 

[DNC127]

Thats the thing, I am having difficulty reconciling the emphasis that DO schools place on OMM in its evidence of efficacy. It seems like the only reason it is emphasized is to show that they are different. Doing something for that reason and then espousing that as better for patients seems contradictory. Therefore my question as to why spend over 100 hours in training and have questions asking about it on board exams.

free massages.

 

[SouthernSurgeon]

There is evidence show OMM is more efficacious, or at worst similar to standard of care. There are also systematic reviews that show the efficacy and significance of OMM as well.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199911043411903#t=abstract
.

I love that this study always gets tossed around as the gold standard for OMM research.

They studied a self limited condition with no good treatment, just supportive care.

In other words, they wrote a study that says "Our crappy inefficacious treatment is just as good (or bad rather?) as your crappy inefficacious treatment".

It's not like they found a condition where OMM works as well as real definitive medical treatment.

Now that said, if I had a patient with low back pain, I would certainly try to get them some OMM if I could (or refer them to PT, or a massage therapist). If it lowers the likelihood of them requiring narcotics or ending up getting a spine surgery they didn't need - that's certainly a net positive and a good application of the technique. But let's not pretend you're curing cancer with the bone magics.

 

[ChrisMack390]

In terms of matching difficulty for DOs, here is generally what I have observed (people more familiar with this process, please correct me):

Easy: pediatrics, internal medicine, pathology, family medicine, PM&R, psychiatry

Medium: OBGYN, emergency medicine, anesthesiology, neurology

Hard: general surgery, radiology

Extremely hard (do not at all count on matching into these as a DO): neurosurgery, plastic surgery, orthopedic surgery, ENT, ophthalmology, dermatology, radiation oncology, urology

I am curious how you think this differs from MD students' chances. I looks pretty much exactly the same, right?

 

[WedgeDawg]

I am curious how you think this differs from MD students' chances. I looks pretty much exactly the same, right?

The average MD student has an exceptionally high chance of matching into anything except the surgical subspecialties, derm, and rad onc.

 

[redsox93]

1st, I would not say DO schools are "easier" to get into and "stay in" ... they are rigorous and require the same classes as the allo.

2nd, COMLEX is similar to USMLE (DO v MD)

3rd, DO is more holistic than allo...

I'm allo only but go to a DO (or did until the rat-ba... move away... damn him anyway )

Decided to read this from the beginning and saw this gem of a post... what does any of this even mean? You're allo only but go to a DO? It takes some next level verbal reasoning skills to understand what this post means.

 

[ChrisMack390]

The average MD student has an exceptionally high chance of matching into anything except the surgical subspecialties, derm, and rad onc.

Your extreme tier is some surgical specialties, derm, rad onc, and also optho and ENT (which I believe are extremely competitive as well right?)

Are you suggesting that DOs have a couple of tiers of difficulty (easy/med/hard/extreme) while MDs only have 2 tiers (normal/extreme)?

 

[GrapesofRath]

I am curious how you think this differs from MD students' chances. I looks pretty much exactly the same, right?

Quality of the program you match into is another major variable regardless of field. An example that shows this fairly clearly as IM.

To match into ANY IM program as a US MD/DO is not difficult. But to match into the particularly desirable residencies lumped under the designation of IM? Even strong MD students are in a fight for those.
There is a huge difference between a small community IM program(which is what a large number of DO's who go into IM match into) vs IM subspecialities which are what many MD's are aiming for.
Many will lump these as both under the same "IM Primary Care" designation when in reality they are completely different.
Forget about what people in the field will tell you are "top tier residencies", even what they regard as "middle tier" residencies they'll tell you wont consider a DO.

This is just one example in particular but it highlights the notion many have that "DO and MD are the same as long as you dont want to gun for something like derm or neurosurg" isn't based in any kind of reality.
The letters absolutely do matter in essentially every field.

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

Quality of the program you match into is another major variable regardless of field. An example that shows this fairly clearly as IM.

To match into ANY IM program as a US MD/DO is not difficult. But to match into the particularly desirable residencies lumped under the designation of IM? Even strong MD students are in a fight for those.
There is a huge difference between a small community IM program(which is what a large number of DO's who go into IM match into) vs IM subspecialities which are what many MD's are aiming for.
Many will lump these as both under the same "IM Primary Care" designation when in reality they are completely different.
Forget about what people in the field will tell you are "top tier residencies", even what they regard as "middle tier" residencies they'll tell you wont consider a DO.

This is just one example in particular but it highlights the notion many have that "DO and MD are the same as long as you dont want to gun for something like derm or neurosurg" isn't based in any kind of reality.
The letters absolutely do matter in essentially every field.

Agreed, I will say though that people always forget that the vast majority of DO students are aiming for community IM or other low to medium difficulty specialties. Only a select handful actually aim for the really competitive specialties or programs. On these forums we tend to neglect that fact and act as if every incoming DO student thinks they are going to be orthos or do IM at BWH, this just isn't the case. One of my best friends is currently at one of the most established DO programs that has a good number of quality specialty matches every year and just under half of his class is dead set on FM and another good chunk is aiming for Peds or PC IM. Only really the top 25 - 30% of students are even thinking about something competative.