The First DO-specific NRMP Charting Outcome!

[Postictal Raiden]

http://www.nrmp.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Charting-Outcomes-US-Osteopathic-2016.pdf

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[67552931811]

http://www.nrmp.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Charting-Outcomes-US-Osteopathic-2016.pdf

I wish they supplied usmle data as well. Just showing comlex does nothing for the mass majority of us. What if that person with a 640 comlex got a 210 usmle? Or what if that person with a 550 comlex got a 235. I don't know, maybe I'm too cynical, but this really doesn't help us out any.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

I wish they supplied usmle data as well. Just showing comlex does nothing for the mass majority of us. What if that person with a 640 comlex got a 210 usmle? Or what if that person with a 550 comlex got a 235. I don't know, maybe I'm too cynical, but this really doesn't help us out any.

Technically it does since less than 50% of DOs take the usmle....

But honestly this data is indeed somewhat difficult to interpret though. But I suppose it's a start and it's something that can help push people in the right direction in both application and in what not.

But even then I'm not sure if saying that a person with a 500 on their comlex can match acgme gas with more than 90% chance is right either for example.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Basically a lot of these poor statistics I think may have to do with poor advisement on how to rank and how many interviews these people went to tbh.

 

[InternistDO]

Technically it does since less than 50% of DOs take the usmle....

I wonder what percentage take it who apply ACGME as opposed to AOA though

 

[DetectiveAlonzo]

COMLEX is such a poorly written exam that it does not compare to the USMLE.

FWIW, our clinical deans said if anybody is scoring below an 80% in the curriculum, they will have a hell of a time getting into residency since preclinical translates well into board scores.

A lot of folks are freeeeaaaaakkkkkkinnggggg out man.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

COMLEX is such a poorly written exam that it does not compare to the USMLE.

FWIW, our clinical deans said if anybody is scoring below an 80% in the curriculum, they will have a hell of a time getting into residency since preclinical translates well into board scores.

A lot of folks are freeeeaaaaakkkkkkinnggggg out man.

uh.... ok?

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

I wonder what percentage take it who apply ACGME as opposed to AOA though

*Shrugs*

I'd imagine more for sure. But at the same time many of our strongest students are also applying AOA for competitive specialties too.

Either way though much of the results seem contradictory to reason or reality. Too many other factors exist. And in the end it seems like almost invariably the biggest connection was in how many programs a person interviewed and ranked.

 

[DetectiveAlonzo]

uh.... ok?

LOL I know it has nothing to do with anything. Just word vomiting.

#DatFormaldehydeDoe

 

[67552931811]

Technically it does since less than 50% of DOs take the usmle....

But honestly this data is indeed somewhat difficult to interpret though. But I suppose it's a start and it's something that can help push people in the right direction in both application and in what not.

But even then I'm not sure if saying that a person with a 500 on their comlex can match acgme gas with more than 90% chance is right either for example.

The missing piece is how many of those 38 in the 501-550 box for gas (per your example) took the step? 35 of them vs. 5 paints a completely different picture. I'm inclined to think it's the former but it's pure speculation.

COMLEX is such a poorly written exam that it does not compare to the USMLE.

FWIW, our clinical deans said if anybody is scoring below an 80% in the curriculum, they will have a hell of a time getting into residency since preclinical translates well into board scores.

A lot of folks are freeeeaaaaakkkkkkinnggggg out man.

IDK. A lot of times on our exams the difference between an B+ (student A) and a C+ (student B) is a handful of questions. I find it hard to believe the bro (student A) memorizing that random prof's favorite transcription factor is going to make student A have a higher board score than student B.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

The missing piece is how many of those 38 in the 501-550 box for gas (per your example) took the step? 35 of them vs. 5 paints a completely different picture. I'm inclined to think it's the former but it's pure speculation.


IDK. A lot of times on our exams the difference between an B+ (student A) and a C+ (student B) is a handful of questions. I find it hard to believe the bro (student A) memorizing that random prof's favorite transcription factor is going to make student A have a higher board score than student B.

No doubt, it's something invariably important to cover....
But even then I'm doubtful that ppl are sincerely failing to match FM or Psych with 500s on their boards. The results simply seem to be difficult to elaborate upon.

 

[IsWhat]

Basically a lot of these poor statistics I think may have to do with poor advisement on how to rank and how many interviews these people went to tbh.

Yeah the average number of ranked programs for unmatched applicants was like 4-6 programs. Where are these peoples advisors...? Honestly, DO schools should require 10 programs bare minimum.

 

[kenjixshadow]

PDs survey if anyone cares, it's pretty much the same as 2014 version: http://www.nrmp.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/NRMP-2016-Program-Director-Survey.pdf
Anyway, I'd take this DO charting with a grant of salt since there is no USMLE score.

 

[jaguar33]

I found this part of the report interesting:

"Methods - Specialties that offered 50 or more positions and had at least 7 matched or unmatched applicants preferring the specialty in the 2016 Main Residency Match are included in this report."

Does this mean that specialties such as orthopedics & ENT had < 7 people forgo the AOA match in an attempt for ACGME? If that's the case it will be interesting to see what happens with the combined match since 4 matched ACGME orthopedics & 1 ENT.

 

[IslandStyle808]

WTF is up with the PD survey. Its like this shift in preference to FMGs and IMGs for certain specialities (I'm not talking about the ultra competitive ones but the slightly competitive and non-competitive).

 

[NurWollen]

Honestly, this DO-specific data is helpful, despite not having USMLE data.

Sent from my SM-N910V using SDN mobile

 

[postbacpremed87]

They aren't going to release DO specific USMLE numbers because it would show that DOs need higher numbers on the same exact test.

 

[hallowmann]

So I was going to post this hours earlier, but I was on the road. Its actually pretty surprising. Match rate for GS is actually 50%, which while low is not as low as I expected. It also shows that the majority of the match rates for specialties are actually pretty close to the overall match rate (80%).

They also released specific ones for US MDs and IMGs, so it is even more interesting to see the match rates as they compare to those populations.

Yeah the average number of ranked programs for unmatched applicants was like 4-6 programs. Where are these peoples advisors...? Honestly, DO schools should require 10 programs bare minimum.

Its usually a sign of the number of interviews people get. Sometimes its not, but a lot of people that don't match probably have redflags, so they get less interviews, and in turn have less ranks. There is also a subset though that doesn't apply strategically, doesn't go on enough interviews, and doesn't rank enough places.

They aren't going to release DO specific USMLE numbers because it would show that DOs need higher numbers on the same exact test.

While its true, they probably don't release it because the numbers involved in the USMLE are very small and variable (some people with Step 1 only, some with Step 2 only, some with both, some with none, etc.).

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

I think we're all going to have to come to terms with the reality that we probably will never have good data on the general match statistics of DO students for the reason hallowmann stated. Not everyone is even taking the same sequence of tests.

All this data really told me that a lot of DOs are applying to acgme residencies with really really really bad ideas of what they need to do to match.

Also continues to push the reality that COMLEX is going to be more and more a problem in the coming years.

 

[Postictal Raiden]

I just compared the match rates between DO applicants (page 5) and IMG/FMG applicants (page 5 also). In contrary to what DO bashers write on this forum, DO applicants have much better odds at matching any specialty than their IMG/FMG counterparts.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Also anyone notice that it seems that across the boards people who used gateway/ linkage programs i.e got masters degrees were doing a lot poorer in matching than those without.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

I just compared the match rates between DO applicants (page 5) and IMG/FMG applicants (page 5 also). In contrary to what DO bashers write on this forum, DO applicants have much better odds at matching any specialty than their IMG/FMG counterparts.

Can we talk about how eratic the data is for psychiatry though?

Everyone basically matched into Neuro tho.

 

[qqw]

.....so the average COMLEX for DO's who matched ACGME Family medicine was 525...what does that mean for a DO like myself with a level 1 in the low 400's? just apply AOA Family medicine? :0

 

[Postictal Raiden]

Can we talk about how eratic the data is for psychiatry though?

Everyone basically matched into Neuro tho.

Well, DOs are still doing significantly better than international applicants. The low-ish match rate for psych could be explained by applicants who are applying as back-up, with no sincere desire of pursuing the field. I'm pretty sure PD's are experienced enough to sense this type of BS from these applicants.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

.....so the average COMLEX for DO's who matched ACGME Family medicine was 525...what does that mean for a DO like myself with a level 1 in the low 400's? just apply AOA Family medicine? :0

You have nearly an 80% of matching ACGME FM if your score is between 400 and 450. Apply smart and broadly and it'll be closer to 90.

 

[Postictal Raiden]

.....so the average COMLEX for DO's who matched ACGME Family medicine was 525...what does that mean for a DO like myself with a level 1 in the low 400's? just apply AOA Family medicine? :0

Even with a barely passing score (400), your odds of matching are above 70%

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Well, DOs are still doing significantly better than international applicants. The low-ish match rate for psych could be explained by applicants who are applying as back-up, with no sincere desire of pursuing the field. I'm pretty sure PD's are experienced enough to sense this type of BS from these applicants.

Hmm makes sense potentially. Idk, I'm irritated endlessly by the lack of resources and clarity in matching psychiatry these days. Between the psych forum's what are my chances having only people with 240s+ ( as if someone needs to be informed of what they need to do at that point) and all of the DOs being ignored it's beginning to get on my nerves.

 

[Postictal Raiden]

Hmm makes sense potentially. Idk, I'm irritated endlessly by the lack of resources and clarity in matching psychiatry these days. Between the psych forum's what are my chances having only people with 240s+ ( as if someone needs to be informed of what they need to do at that point) and all of the DOs being ignored it's beginning to get on my nerves.

Yeah, the field is definitely getting more competitive. However, it will still be very attainable to DOs with mediocre stats, at least in the near future.

For now, just focus doing good in school and scoring as high as you can on boards. The higher the score you get, the more open doors you'll have. Also, take step1.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Yeah, the field is definitely getting more competitive. However, it will still be very attainable to DOs with mediocre stats, at least in the near future.

For now, just focus doing good in school and scoring as high as you can on boards. The higher the score you get, the more open doors you'll have. Also, take step1.

That's the thing though, compared to peak competitiveness it's still almost the same as always.

And yah, I think I'll take step1. But I'm doing so reluctantly tbh haha.

 

[Jinxapotato]

COMLEX is such a poorly written exam that it does not compare to the USMLE.

FWIW, our clinical deans said if anybody is scoring below an 80% in the curriculum, they will have a hell of a time getting into residency since preclinical translates well into board scores.

A lot of folks are freeeeaaaaakkkkkkinnggggg out man.

lol chill, in that case half of our class is going to deliver pizza...

 

[DetectiveAlonzo]

lol chill, in that case half of our class is going to deliver pizza...

I think half of my class SHOULD be delivering pizza.

 

[kenjixshadow]

I think half of my class SHOULD be delivering pizza.

But none of you are delivering pizza YET. Stop with the negativity. Rather by freaking out, embrace the challenge and work your tail off.

 

[67552931811]

@hallowmann or any else, any idea as to why the total number of applicants/ those matched, for DOs, is different in this specific charting outcomes as compared to the "main" one?

For reference: http://www.nrmp.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Main-Match-Results-and-Data-2016.pdf

Like, it's not even close-- the link above is almost 3,000 DO applicants and the one Ibn posted is about 2,600 DO applicants.

 

[DetectiveAlonzo]

,

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

I ain't stressing at all.I'm just against my own faculty putting out negative vibes.

Med school isn't hard. IDK why people insist that it's the toughest thing ever.

Undergrad was way harder. People just don't have discipline.

The people most affected by this merger will be the bottom of the class. No doubt.

It's not supposed to be hard. It's supposed to be long and exhausting. And more importantly as time goes on things pile up, PCM, OS, SPs, mandatory events, clubs, etc. All end up not only disrupting your schedule and use of time, but also end up leaving you worn out.

Also mind you that you're not actually in medical school yet. You're in an accelerated boot camp the first two months until you finish MSK/Anatomy. At which point you start your systems or etc and then you're in medical school.

 

[Postictal Raiden]

@hallowmann or any else, any idea as to why the total number of applicants/ those matched, for DOs, is different in this specific charting outcomes as compared to the "main" one?

For reference: http://www.nrmp.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Main-Match-Results-and-Data-2016.pdf

Like, it's not even close-- the link above is almost 3,000 DO applicants and the one Ibn posted is about 2,600 DO applicants.

Because the outcome report doesn't include specialties that have low number of DO matches (Ortho, Derm, transitional year, etc..)

 

[DetectiveAlonzo]

It's not supposed to be hard. It's supposed to be long and exhausting. And more importantly as time goes on things pile up, PCM, OS, SPs, mandatory events, clubs, etc. All end up not only disrupting your schedule and use of time, but also end up leaving you worn out.

Also mind you that you're not actually in medical school yet. You're in an accelerated boot camp the first two months until you finish MSK/Anatomy. At which point you start your systems or etc and then you're in medical school.

you the man. Always keepin' it real. Appreciate it.

 

[IslandStyle808]

I just compared the match rates between DO applicants (page 5) and IMG/FMG applicants (page 5 also). In contrary to what DO bashers write on this forum, DO applicants have much better odds at matching any specialty than their IMG/FMG counterparts.

What is irking me right now is that although DOs are still matching better, in terms of "consideration" by PDs we are showing similar numbers to IMG/FMGs in certain specialities (internal medicine, pathology, psychiatry). Their consideration of IMGs and FMGs are greater in the sub-surgical fields. There is no way DO applicants overall apps are worse than the vast majority of IMG/FMGs to be considered even less.

 

[IslandStyle808]

While its true, they probably don't release it because the numbers involved in the USMLE are very small and variable (some people with Step 1 only, some with Step 2 only, some with both, some with none, etc.).

I don't know why they care about the statistical significance of this, it didn't stop them from making comparisons in ultra competitive specialities with the independent applicant outcomes. I could care less if I saw a negative correlation for the USMLE step 1 and matching.

 

[IsWhat]

Also anyone notice that it seems that across the boards people who used gateway/ linkage programs i.e got masters degrees were doing a lot poorer in matching than those without.

As someone interested in my schools dual degree program this has me scratching my head also.

 

[hallowmann]

What is irking me right now is that although DOs are still matching better, in terms of "consideration" by PDs we are showing similar numbers to IMG/FMGs in certain specialities (internal medicine, pathology, psychiatry). Their consideration of IMGs and FMGs are greater in the sub-surgical fields. There is no way DO applicants overall apps are worse than the vast majority of IMG/FMGs to be considered even less.

I think this might be a numbers thing. IMGs had double the numbers of DOs that applied ACGME GenSurg. I'm sure the numbers are even more disparate with regards to the surgical subspecialties. As an MD PD, if I saw half as many DO applications as IMG applications (or maybe I didn't see any at all) I'd be more inclined to say that I consider US IMGs more than I do DOs, because I don't consider them, because I never see their apps. The thing is in spite of that, DO GS match rate was >50%, while the US IMG match rate for GS was 32%, which probably speaks to the last line in your post.

In terms of the other specialties (IM, Psych, Path), again even though numbers are similar in terms of the percentage of PDs that consider DOs and consider US IMGs, the difference really shows in both match rates (87%, 77%, 82% vs. 52%, 32%, 50%) and in terms of the percentage of PDs that "often" consider the applicants for ranking (67%, 67%, 68% vs. 63%, 54%, 59%).

I think what we're dealing with in the those latter specialties is the upper echelon of programs that simply never have to consider non-US MD applicants, so they don't.

 

[hallowmann]

As someone interested in my schools dual degree program this has me scratching my head also.

I doubt it has anything to do with their degrees. Extra degrees don't help in the residency app process much (unless you're applying to a program with that type of focus), and something you have to remember is that a lot of the students that had to do linkage or MS to DO programs likely had lower stats (maybe an indication of lower performance on standardized exams), which would be a confounding factor in the comparison.

Also, keep in mind that many DO programs use MS, MPH, MHA, etc. or fellowships to extend the curriculum of students that didn't do well or have to wait for next year's match. My school doesn't do this, but I have heard of a few that do.

 

[chizledfrmstone]

So let me get this straight, the mean for IM is ~580?

 

[Postictal Raiden]

So let me get this straight, the mean for IM is ~580?

Yeah but remember, this is only the mean and the data from the report show that ~200 matched with lower scores. In fact, there were very few who couldn't match IM regardless of their scores. This compels me to believe that the mean is high due to self-selection rather than not making the cutoffs.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

I doubt it has anything to do with their degrees. Extra degrees don't help in the residency app process much (unless you're applying to a program with that type of focus), and something you have to remember is that a lot of the students that had to do linkage or MS to DO programs likely had lower stats (maybe an indication of lower performance on standardized exams), which would be a confounding factor in the comparison.

Also, keep in mind that many DO programs use MS, MPH, MHA, etc. or fellowships to extend the curriculum of students that didn't do well or have to wait for next year's match. My school doesn't do this, but I have heard of a few that do.

Right, I was more or less saying that it seems like people who entered into DO schools through linkage programs aren't doing as well as those who entered directly.

 

[Yadster101]

So I was going to post this hours earlier, but I was on the road. Its actually pretty surprising. Match rate for GS is actually 50%, which while low is not as low as I expected. It also shows that the majority of the match rates for specialties are actually pretty close to the overall match rate (80%).

.

Can you explain what the 80% means? Are you saying 80% of DOs match? So 20% of DOs dont end up getting residencies? I know I must be misunderstanding that. Right?

 

[NurWollen]

So let me get this straight, the mean for IM is ~580?

Yes, but...

Yeah but remember, this is only the mean and the data from the report show that ~200 matched with lower scores. In fact, there were very few who couldn't match IM regardless of their scores. This compels me to believe that the mean is high due to self-selection rather than not making the cutoffs.

True. Also, mean score is a data point that includes the people with 700s matching at the most competitive programs that take DOs at all, as well as the people in the lower 400s who match at lower tier programs.

I think the most useful data in this report is the chart that shows the curves with your chances of matching with a given score and your chances of matching with a given number of ranked programs.

I would bet that at this point in the game (for those of us applying this year), the most powerful tool you have to increase your chances matching is to apply to as many programs you can and thus get as many interviews as you can. If you have a rank list of say, 15 programs, your chances of going unmatched rapidly approach zero.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Can you explain what the 80% means? Are you saying 80% of DOs match? So 20% of DOs dont end up getting residencies? I know I must be misunderstanding that. Right?

I could be wrong, but this is a pre-scramble analysis.
For example: 80% of those who applied to for example Gas matched. 20% did not match. Those who ranked more than 10 programs matched with an 100% rate. More than 90% of people with a comlex score of over 500 matched.

Those with under a 500 and under 10 ranked programs ended up failing to match.

 

[the argus]

@hallowmann or any else, any idea as to why the total number of applicants/ those matched, for DOs, is different in this specific charting outcomes as compared to the "main" one?

For reference: http://www.nrmp.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Main-Match-Results-and-Data-2016.pdf

Like, it's not even close-- the link above is almost 3,000 DO applicants and the one Ibn posted is about 2,600 DO applicants.

from page ii of the report,

"A total of 2,982 U.S. osteopathic students/graduates submitted certified rank order lists in the 2016 Main Residency Match. After excluding the 14.3 percent of osteopathic medical students/graduates who did not give consent to participate in NRMP research, 2,555 osteopathic applicants were included in the final dataset. Missing data were found in number of research experiences (26.3%), number of abstracts, presentations, and publications (28.2%), number of work experiences (27.2%), number of volunteer experiences (27.8%), Ph.D. degree (16.9%), and other graduate degree (16.6%). Identity matching of all applicants was not possible due to insufficient information; therefore, 2.9 percent of COMLEX-USA scores were missing."

It's not because of the number of DOs matching into specialties not included in the report as someone said above. The number of DOs matching into specialties not in this report is minimal, certainly not ~400. Also from page ii of the report,

"Specialties that offered 50 or more positions and had at least 7 matched or unmatched applicants preferring the specialty in the 2016 Main Residency Match are included in this report.."

 

[the argus]

Can you explain what the 80% means? Are you saying 80% of DOs match? So 20% of DOs dont end up getting residencies? I know I must be misunderstanding that. Right?

20% of DOs did not match in the NRMP. Another 132 (~4%) got positions in the SOAP. The remaining 16% that didn't match into ACGME positions went back and filled all the unfilled AOA residency positions. DOs have an overall placement rate >98%, stemming from the overabundance of AOA residency positions.

EDIT: mistakenly put 80% don't match instead of 20%. 80% do match