Charting Outcomes 2007

Charting Outcomes in the Match
Characteristics of Applicants Who Matched to Their Preferred Specialty in the 2007 NRMP Main Residency Match 2nd Edition
Prepared by: National Resident Matching Program and Association of American Medical Colleges
August 2007
www.aamc.org
www.nrmp.org
Questions about the contents of this publication or the National Resident Matching Program data collections may be directed to Philip Szenas, Director of Research, National Resident Matching Program, (202) 828-0958 or pszenas@aamc.org. Questions about the NRMP should be directed to Mona Signer, Executive Director, NRMP, (202) 828-0629 or msigner@aamc.org. Questions about the AAMC data collections may be directed to Paul Jolly, Ph.D., Senior Associate Vice President, Association of American Medical Colleges, (202) 828-0257 or pjolly@aamc.org.
Copyright 2007 National Resident Matching Program and the Association of American Medical Colleges. All materials subject to this copyright may be photocopied for the purpose of nonprofit, scientific, or educational advancement.
2007
TABLE
OF C ONTENTS C h a r tin g O u tc o m e s
Introduction The Transition from Medical School to Residency.................................................................................... ii Summary ................................................................................................................................................... iii Tables and Charts for All Specialties Table 1. Number of Applicants and Positions in the 2007 Main Residency Match ...................................2 Chart 1. Active Applicants in the 2007 Main Residency Match .................................................................2 Chart 2. Ratio - Applicants Ranking Specialty First / Available Positions .................................................3 Chart 3. Match Rates ...................................................................................................................................4 Table 2. Summary Statistics ........................................................................................................................5 Chart 4. Median Number Contiguous Ranks by Preferred Specialty..........................................................6 Chart 5. Percentage of Applicants Ranking only One Specialty by Preferred Specialty ............................7 Chart 6. Distribution of U.S. Seniors Who Have a Graduate Degree in Addition to M.D. Degree ............8 Chart 7. Percentage of Matched U.S. Seniors Who Have a Graduate Degree ............................................8 Chart 8. Percentage of U.S. Seniors Who Graduated from a Top 40 NIH Research Intensive Medical School .......................................................................................9 Chart 9. Percentage of U.S. Seniors Who are Members of Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) .........................10 Chart 10. USMLE Step 1 Scores of Matched Applicants by Preferred Specialty.....................................11 Chart 11. USMLE Step 2 Scores of Matched Applicants by Preferred Specialty.....................................12 Chart 12. Percentage Reporting Research Experiences by Preferred Specialty ........................................13 Chart 13. Percentage Reporting Abstracts, Presentations, or Publications by Preferred Specialty...........14 Predicting Match Success..............................................................................................................................15 Tables and Charts for Individual Specialties Anesthesiology ..........................................................................................................................................20 Dermatology..............................................................................................................................................26 Emergency Medicine.................................................................................................................................32 Family Medicine........................................................................................................................................38 Internal Medicine.......................................................................................................................................44 Internal Medicine/Pediatrics......................................................................................................................50 Neurology..................................................................................................................................................56 Obstetrics and Gynecology .......................................................................................................................62 Orthopaedic Surgery..................................................................................................................................68 Otolaryngology..........................................................................................................................................74 Pathology-Anatomic and Clinical .............................................................................................................80 Pediatrics ...................................................................................................................................................86 Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation .......................................................................................................92 Plastic Surgery...........................................................................................................................................98 Psychiatry ................................................................................................................................................104 Radiation Oncology.................................................................................................................................110 Radiology-Diagnostic..............................................................................................................................116 Surgery-General ......................................................................................................................................122 Transitional Year .....................................................................................................................................128 Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................................134
Copyright 2007 NRMP and AAMC. Copies may be made for educational or noncommercial uses only.
Charting Outcomes in the Match, 2007
2007
INTRODUCTION
or support specialty. Successful completion of a residency is one of the requirements for licensure and prepares the physician to practice in that specialty. The residency is thus an extremely important step in the preparation of a physician, and students place great importance on securing a position in the specialty of their choice and in a program within that specialty that will meet their needs. Residency applicants choose a preferred specialty and select programs within that specialty that are attractive to them with the aid of advisors at their schools, various publicly available databases, and online planning resources such as the AAMC Careers in Medicine Program. Applicants apply to the programs of their choice, most often using the Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) of the AAMC. Program directors and their selection committees review the applications and select some of the applicants for interviews. Then, based on the interviews and the application materials, program directors decide which applicants they would like to have in their programs, and applicants decide which programs they would like to pursue. The National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) provides a mechanism for determining the best outcome for both applicants and programs. Most applicants and most programs participate in the NRMP. Each applicant provides a rank-ordered list of desired programs, and each program provides a rank-ordered list of applicants. The matching algorithm assigns each applicant to his or her highest ranked program that also ranked the applicant and has not filled all of the available positions with applicants preferred by that program.1 For the competitive specialties, some applicants are necessarily disappointed. No applicant is guaranteed success, but those with superior qualifications are very likely to gain entry to their preferred specialty, if not to their preferred program within that specialty. Applicants to residency programs and their advisors are anxious to have any available information bearing on their probability of matching so that they can tailor their applications and their NRMP rank order lists appropriately. Program directors base their selections on medical school transcripts, particularly clerkship grades, the Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE) or deans letter, letters of recommendation, research experience, publications, the personal statement from the ERAS application, and the residency interview. They also take into account membership in the medical student honor society Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) and scores on the United States Medical Licensure
The first edition of Charting Outcomes in the Match was published in July 2006 in response to requests from students and their advisors for data casting some light on how applicant qualifications affect match success. The second edition of Charting Outcomes builds on the original study by adding two specialties now participating in the NRMP Main Residency Match (Otolaryngology and Neurology), incorporating several new measures, and conducting regression analyses to predict match success. For the purposes of this report, match success is defined as a match to the specialty of the applicants first-ranked program, because that is assumed to be the specialty of choice. Lack of success includes matching to some other specialty as well as failure to match at all. No distinction was made to whether applicants matched to their first, second, third, or last choice. Combining data from the NRMP, the database of AAMCs Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS), USMLE scores made available by the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) and the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates (ECFMG), and other AAMC data sources, we identified ten applicant characteristics. NBME and ECFMG have given permission to use USMLE scores, and the National Resident Matching Program and the Association of American Medical Colleges have collaborated to produce this report. Because graduating seniors from U.S. allopathic medical schools match at higher rates, on average, than the other groups, and because some of those groups contain small numbers of applicants, this report distinguishes only two types of applicants: U.S. seniors and independent applicants. It should be noted, however, that the independent applicant category is a somewhat heterogeneous group. The Transition From Medical School to Residency An important step in the development of a medical career is the selection of a residency, a program of clinical training following graduation from medical school and a prerequisite for an unrestricted license to practice medicine. Appointments to the most sought after residencies are often quite competitive, and the process of selection by both applicants and program directors is facilitated by the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP). For the most competitive specialties, not all applicants can be accommodated, and an applicant may not be able to obtain training in his or her first-choice specialty. In order to practice medicine in the United States, one must not only graduate from a recognized medical school, but one also must pass a series of licensure examinations and complete a program of graduate medical educationa residency. The residency provides additional supervised clinical training, usually focusing on one medical, surgical,
For details of the matching algorithm, see http://www.nrmp.org/res_match/about_res/algorithms.html.
ii
2007 INTRODUCTION (CONTINUED)

Examination (USMLE), Step 1 and in some cases Step 2. Although, the licensure examinations and especially Step 1, the basic science examination, are not designed for resident selection, program directors continue to use them because they are quantitative and nationally standardized measures of an applicant's mastery of medical knowledge during training. Program directors might like to have available quantitative and nationally standardized measures of integrity, honesty, sensitivity, cultural competence and other aspects of professionalism, and the AAMC is piloting new approaches to quantifying those measures as a part of the Medical Student Performance Evaluation. Because those data do not now exist, however, program directors try to discern those qualities from the non-quantitative information at their disposal. Summary Some general observations apply to all of the specialties in this report. Applicants who are successful in matching to their preferred specialty are more likely to: Rank more programs within their preferred specialty Be U.S. seniors Have higher USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 scores Be members of AOA Include a mix of both highly competitive and less competitive programs within your preferred specialty. Include all of the programs on your list where the program has expressed an interest in you and where you would accept a position. Have a Plan B. If you are applying to a competitive specialty, and if you would want to have some residency position in the event you are unsuccessful in gaining acceptance to a program in your preferred specialty, rank also your most preferred programs in an alternate specialty. Include all of your qualifications in your application, but know that you do not have to be AOA, to have the highest USMLE scores, to have publications, and to have participated in research projects to successfully match. Program directors and applicants will find the tables and charts for the specialty of their particular interest later in this report. For questions, comments or more information, please contact: Philip Szenas Director of Research National Resident Matching Program Tel: (202) 828-0958 Email: pszenas@aamc.org Or Paul Jolly, Ph.D. Senior Associate Vice President Division of Medical School Services and Studies Tel: (202) 828-0629 Email: pjolly@aamc.org
Although some of the other measures examined seemed to be related to match success for some specialties, the relationships were not consistent enough to draw broad conclusions across specialties. In addition, the data sources used for Charting Outcomes could not evaluate other important applicant factors such as course evaluations, reference letters, and the MSPE. Despite the fairly strong relationship between USMLE Step scores and match success, the distributions of scores show that program directors consider other qualifications in addition to scores on that examination. A high score is not a guarantee of success. Even in the most competitive specialties a few individuals with the most impressive scores are not successful. Neither is a mediocre score a bar to success. In the less competitive specialties, U.S. seniors with barely passing scores usually match to their preferred specialties. The data also are reassuring because they indicate that at least some programs do not employ an arbitrary cutoff or refuse to consider applicants with less than excellent test performance. The data in this report support the following straightforward advice one should give to an applicant. Rank all of the programs you really want, without regard to your estimate of your chances with those programs.
iii
TABLES AND CHARTS FOR ALL SPECIALTIES
Chart ACTIVE APPLICANTS IN THE 2007 MAIN RESIDENCY MATCH 1 By Applicant Type
U.S. Allopathic Seniors (U.S. Graduates), 14,511, 54% U.S. Citizen Students and Graduates of International Schools, 2,612, 10% Canadian Students and Graduates, 62, <1% Fifth Pathway, 71, <1%
Non-U.S. Citizen Students and Graduates of International Schools, 6,709, 25% U.S. Allopathic Physicians, 1,231, 5%
Source: NRMP Data Warehouse.
Chart 1 shows the number and percent of active applicants (applicants who submitted rank order lists of programs) by applicant type in the 2007 Main Residency Match . U.S. allopathic medical school seniors constitute 54 percent of the applicants in this report. The next largest group is non-U.S. citizen students and graduates of international medical schools (25%). For the remainder of this report, all applicants who are not U.S. allopathic seniors will be grouped into the "independent applicants" category.
Osteopathic Seniors and Graduates, 1,624, 6%
Table 1 provides a summary of the number of applicants and positions for selected specialties participating in the 2007 NRMP Main Residency Match. Only those specialties offering 50 or more positions are included. The numbers of applicants matched by applicant type (U.S. senior and independent applicants) also are provided in this table.
Table NUMBER OF APPLICANTS AND POSITIONS IN THE 2007 MAIN RESIDENCY MATCH 1 By Preferred Specialty*
Preferred Specialty Anesthesiology** Dermatology** Emergency Medicine** Family Medicine Internal Medicine Internal Medicine/Pediatrics Neurology** Obstetrics and Gynecology Orthopaedic Surgery Otolaryngology Pathology-Anatomic and Clinical Pediatrics Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation** Plastic Surgery** Psychiatry** Radiation Oncology** Radiology-Diagnostic** Surgery-General Transitional Year Total Positions Offered 1,334 320 1,384 2,603 5,517 385 539 1,146 616 270 513 2,424 352 92 1,073 142 1,035 1,057 1,017 Number of Total Number of Applicants Applicants Per Position 1,581 579 1,669 3,043 7,174 401 664 1,611 876 353 657 2,717 432 160 1,319 188 1,331 1,636 303 1.2 1.8 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.1 1.2 1.7 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.6 0.3 U.S. Seniors Matched 1,005 249 1,092 1,079 2,784 274 296 834 577 249 294 1,691 182 85 626 124 831 812 179 Not Matched 66 158 89 13 61 25 12 102 142 56 19 46 23 51 22 28 84 93 67 Independent Applicants Not Matched Matched 259 68 265 939 1,987 56 198 296 36 17 160 535 142 5 326 10 179 352 11 251 104 223 1,012 2,342 46 158 379 121 31 184 445 85 19 345 26 237 379 46
*Preferred specialty is the specialty ranked first on an applicant's rank order list, excluding preliminary programs in specialties except Transitional Year. **Includes PGY-1 and PGY-2 positions. Source: NRMP Data Warehouse.
Chart RATIO - APPLICANTS RANKING SPECIALTY FIRST / AVAILABLE POSITIONS 2 by Preferred Specialty
2.0
0.3
1.5
0.5 0.3 1.3 1.2 0.2 1.1 0.7 0.3 1.1 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.3 0.8 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.6
Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors
1.5
1.0
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.4 Family Medicine
0.1 0.2
0.0
Otolaryngology
RadiologyDiagnostic
Psychiatry
Pathology-Anatomic and Clinical
Radiation Oncology
Surgery-General
Neurology
Internal Medicine
Plastic Surgery
Orthopaedic Surgery
Emergency Medicine
Internal Medicine/Pediatrics
Chart 2 shows the ratio of U.S. seniors and independent applicants to available positions in each specialty, sorted from left to right in descending order by the ratio for U.S. seniors. All specialties except Plastic Surgery, Dermatology, Orthopaedic Surgery, Otolaryngology, and Radiation Oncology have enough positions to accommodate all U.S. seniors who prefer that specialty. Some positions will be filled by well-qualified international medical school graduates and others, but most programs prefer to fill their positions with graduates of U.S. allopathic medical schools, if possible. As the number of applicants has increased in recent years, fewer specialties have offered enough positions for all applicants who prefer that specialty.
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Transitional Year
Anesthesiology
Dermatology
Obstetrics and Gynecology
Pediatrics
Chart MATCH RATES 3 Percent Matched by Preferred Specialty

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants

89 80 73 61 40 21 19 Transitional Year 23 63 44 35 28 63 82 82 89
90
91
92
92
94
94
96
97
97
98
99
54 48 43
55
51
56 47
55 49 46 48
Otolaryngology
Radiation Oncology
RadiologyDiagnostic
Neurology
Psychiatry
Chart 3 shows the percentages of U.S. seniors and independent applicants who matched to their preferred specialty. Overall, 92.0 percent U.S. seniors matched to their preferred specialty. Only Dermatology, Plastic Surgery, and Transitional Year had match rates for U.S. seniors of less than 75 percent. For independent applicants, the overall match rate was 47.6 percent and match rates ranged from a low of 19 percent (Transitional Year) to a high of 63 percent (Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation). In general, independent applicants are less successful in matching to their preferred specialty than are U.S. seniors.
Internal Medicine
Surgery-General
Family Medicine
Orthopaedic Surgery
Plastic Surgery
Dermatology
Emergency Medicine
Anesthesiology
Pediatrics
Table SUMMARY STATISTICS 2 All Specialties Combined

U.S. Seniors Matched Did Not Match (n=13,263) (n=1,157) 8.0 3.0 1.1 1.6 36.7 26.4 4.0 10.3 14.1 221 222 206 236 13,212 226 227 211 241 9,141 2.0 2.2 2.8 12.0 6.0 211 210 194 228 1,144 211 211 193 229 812 2.1 2.1 Independent Applicants Matched Did Not Match (n=5,841) (n=6,433) 5.0 2.0 1.3 1.6 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 215 213 198 213 4,613 217 216 200 234 4,586 1.3 2.2 n/a n/a n/a 205 201 190 216 5,968 205 202 190 218 5,958 1.2 2.4
Measure 1. Median number of contiguous ranks 2. Mean number of distinct specialties ranked 3. Percentage who graduated from top 40 NIH research medical school 4. Percentage who have a Ph.D. degree 5. Percentage who have another graduate degree 6. Percentage who are AOA members 7. USMLE Step 1 score Mean Median 25th percentile 75th percentile Count 8. USMLE Step 2 score Mean Median 25th percentile 75th percentile Count 9. Mean number of research experiences 10. Mean number of abstracts, presentations, and publications
n/a: The measure either does not apply to, applies to only a small percentage of, or no reliable data were available for independent applicants. Sources. Measures 1, 2, and match outcome from the NRMP Data Warehouse, measure 3 from the AAMC Organizational Characteristics Database and AAMC Enterprise Information Store (EIS), measure 4 and 5 from the AAMC Data Warehouse, measures 6, 9, 10 from the AAMC ERAS Data Warehouse, and measures 7 and 8 from the AAMC Data Warehouse and from the ECFMG both by permission of the NBME and ECFMG. Note: Counts are provided for USMLE Step scores since they are the only measures with significant missing data.
Table 2 provides summary statistics by applicant type and match outcome on the 10 measures presented in this report. Data on each of these measures will be displayed graphically by preferred specialty on the following pages. Of the 10 measures, only the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 and Step 2 scores had significant missing data. Overall, there were Step 1 scores for 93.4 percent of applicants. Almost all of the applicants who did not have Step 1 scores were osteopathic medical school seniors and graduates who either take an alternative examination (the Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination, or COMLEX-USA) or take the USMLE exams but do not have their data shared with the AAMC. Step 2 scores were available for 76.8 percent of the applicants. In addition to missing Step 2 scores for the osteopathic applicants, only 69 percent of U.S. seniors had Step 2 scores. The missing data for U.S. seniors can be attributed to the fact that few medical schools require students to take and/or pass the Step 2 examination prior to the NRMP's rank order list deadline.
Chart MEDIAN CONTIGUOUS RANKS BY PREFERRED SPECIALTY U.S. Seniors and Independent Applicants 4
U.S. Seniors
12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Otolaryngology Pathology-Anatomic and Clinical RadiologyDiagnostic Radiation Oncology Neurology Psychiatry Surgery-General Internal Medicine Family Medicine
4 3 2 Plastic Surgery 3 Psychiatry 2 Internal Medicine/Pediatrics 3 Family Medicine 2 2 Transitional Year
12 11 11 10 10 10 10 9 5 4 Anesthesiology Emergency Medicine 9 9 6 5 4 Dermatology Obstetrics and Gynecology 4 4 4 8 8
Matched
8 8 7 7 3 Plastic Surgery 3 7
Not Matched
6 4
6 4
6 3 4 3 2 Transitional Year
3 Pediatrics
Orthopaedic Surgery
12 10 8 6 4 2 0 6
Independent Applicants
9 7 5 3 RadiologyDiagnostic 3 Orthopaedic Surgery 4 2 Radiation Oncology Otolaryngology 5 3 Surgery-General 3 3 Emergency Medicine 3 Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 7 6 6 4 3 Dermatology 3 Obstetrics and Gynecology 2 Neurology 3 Internal Medicine 3 Pediatrics 6 5 6 6 4 3
S o u r c e : N R M P D a ta W a r e h o u s e .
In general, applicants are more likely to be successful if they rank more programs in their desired specialty. To quantify this aspect of applicant behavior, we tallied the number of programs ranked in the first-choice specialty before a program in another specialty appeared on the applicant's rank order list. Chart 4 provides the median number of contiguous ranks by preferred specialty for U.S. seniors and independent applicants who matched and did not match. The top panel shows significant variation across the specialties for U.S. seniors. Radiology-Diagnostic had the longest average contiguous rank list for matched U.S. seniors (12) and Family Medicine (6) and Transitional Year (3) had the shortest. In general, U.S. senior applicants who preferred the more competitive specialties submitted longer contiguous lists. For all specialties, U.S. seniors who matched to their preferred specialty had median contiguous rank lists that were longer than U.S. seniors who did not match. A similar pattern can be found for independent applicants although their lists are shorter than the lists submitted by U.S. seniors. Independent applicants who matched had longer contiguous lists compared with independent applicants who did not match to their preferred specialty. The principal message of these graphs is that applicants with longer rank order lists are more successful than those with shorter ones. The NRMP has been recommending longer list for many years, but many applicants apparently do not heed the advice. Others may have shorter lists because they found only a few programs willing to entertain their applications or because they could not afford a large number of interview trips.
Anesthesiology
PathologyAnatomic and Clinical
5
Chart PERCENTAGES OF APPLICANTS RANKING ONLY ONE SPECIALTY BY PREFERRED SPECIALTY 5 U.S. Seniors and Independent Applicants
U.S. Seniors Obstetrics and Gynecology Pathology-Anatomic and Clinical Pediatrics Internal Medicine Surgery-General Orthopaedic Surgery Family Medicine Psychiatry Otolaryngology Emergency Medicine Internal Medicine/Pediatrics Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Anesthesiology Neurology Radiology-Diagnostic Radiation Oncology Plastic Surgery Dermatology Transitional Year 0% 22 20% 40% 60% 29 28 60 Obstetrics and Gynecology 99 Pathology-Anatomic and Clinical 98 Pediatrics 97 Internal 97 Medicine Surgery-General 97 Orthopaedic96 Surgery Family95 Medicine Psychiatry 94 Otolaryngology 91 Emergency Medicine 91 Internal Medicine/Pediatrics 80 Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 79 76Anesthesiology 76 Neurology 58 75 50 60 81 55 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 70 59 79 71 84 75 72 81 Independent Applicants 80 81 81 80 83
Radiology-Diagnostic 68 Radiation Oncology Plastic Surgery Dermatology Transitional Year 80% 100% 0%
Some applicants are interested in a single specialty while others consider two or more. Chart 5 displays the percentage of applicants who ranked only one specialty by applicant type for applicants who matched to their preferred specialty. The panel on the left shows the percentage of matched U.S. seniors in each specialty who ranked a single specialty. Overall, 88.6 percent of matched U.S. seniors ranked a single specialty, and the percentages ranged from a high of 99 percent for Obstetrics and Gynecology to a low of 22 percent for Transitional Year. A similar pattern can be seen for the independent applicants although on average they show less commitment to a single specialty (77.5%) when compared with U.S. seniors.
Chart DISTRIBUTION OF U.S. SENIORS WHO HAVE A GRADUATE DEGREE IN ADDITION TO M.D. DEGREE 6
Of the 14,420 U.S. seniors included in this report, 2,069 (14.3%) had graduate degrees. Chart 5 shows the distribution of those degrees.
M.S. (747, 37%)
M .P.A. (5, 0%)
M .P.H. (203, 10%) M .A. (414, 20%) M .B.A. (59, 3%) J.D. (27, 1%) Ph.D. (567, 27%) Other (47, 2%)
It has been suggested that program directors may give preference to applicants who have a graduate degree in addition to the M.D. degree. Using the data resources of the AAMC, we identified whether an applicant had a graduate degree. The AAMC data include degrees an applicant earned prior to medical school that were captured by the American Medical College Application Service (AMCAS). Degrees obtained during medical school are tracked in the AAMC's Student Record System (SRS). Because we have access to reliable data only on U.S. seniors, we excluded independent applicants from this analysis.
Source: NRMP Data Warehouse and AAMC Data Warehouse.
Overall, there was little difference in the match rates of U.S. seniors who did and did not have graduate degrees (14.3% versus 14.8%). A slightly higher percentage of matched U.S. seniors had Ph.D.s (4.0% vs. 2.8%), and a slightly higher percentage of unmatched U.S. seniors had other graduate degrees (12.0% vs. 10.3%). Chart 7 shows by preferred specialty the percentage of matched applicants who have a graduate degree. Radiation Oncology had the highest percentage (27%) and Transitional Year the lowest (10%). Radiation Oncology, Anatomic and Clinical Pathology, Dermatology, and Neurology had the highest percentages of matched applicants with Ph.D.s and Emergency Medicine, Orthopaedic Surgery, and Internal Medicine/Pediatrics had the highest percentages with other graduate degrees.
Chart 7
30%
PERCENTAGE OF MATCHED U.S. SENIORS WHO HAVE A GRADUATE DEGREE by Preferred Specialty
Other Graduate Degree
25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0%
6
21
10 12 7
15 11 12 6 2
Pathology-Anatomic and Clinical Neurology
Ph.D.
11
13
14
13
10
11
12
10
11
6
4
5
RadiologyDiagnostic Orthopaedic Surgery Emergency Medicine Internal Medicine/Pediatrics
4
Psychiatry
3
Anesthesiology
2
4
Plastic Surgery
4 2
Otolaryngology Obstetrics and Gynecology
3
Family Medicine Surgery-General Pediatrics
Radiation Oncology
Internal Medicine
Dermatology
Source: NRMP Data Warehouse and AAMC Data Warehouse.

Transitional Year
Chart 8
60%
PERCENTAGE OF U.S. SENIORS WHO GRADUATED FROM A TOP 40 NIH RESEARCH INTENSIVE MEDICAL SCHOOL* by Preferred Specialty and Match Outcome
U.S. Seniors 60
50% 40% 30%
53
56 48 43 30 30 47 44 32 27 20 23 23 11 19 20
Matched 40
Not Matched
39
38
38
38 33
38
37
36
35 24
34 22
32 24
31 26
30 31
20% 10% % Otolaryngology
27 13
Radiation Oncology
RadiologyDiagnostic
Psychiatry
Neurology
Transitional Year
Internal Medicine
Surgery-General
Family Medicine
Orthopaedic Surgery
Anesthesiology
Plastic Surgery
Dermatology
Emergency Medicine
*Ranking based on the total amount of NIH grant awards in 2005, including research grants, training grants, fellowship, research and development contracts, and other awards. Total grants awarded to the 125 U.S. Allopathic medical schools ranged from 1.5 to 450 million dollars. The Top 40 medical schools received 100 million dollars or more. Sources: NRMP Data Warehouse, AAMC Organizational Characteristics Database, and AAMC Enterprise Information Store (EIS).
Some program directors may give preference to applicants with research experience or who graduated from a researchintensive medical school. To test this assumption, we obtained the ranking of each U.S. medical school based on the total amount of NIH grant awards, including research grants, training grants, fellowship, research and development contracts, and other awards. A U.S. senior applicant was considered a graduate of a research-intensive medical school if the medical school was in the top 40 based on the most recent data (2005) obtained from the NIH. This measure, by definition, is limited to graduates of U.S. medical schools. Overall, 36.7 percent (n = 4,874) of matched and 26.4 percent (n = 306) of unmatched U.S. seniors were graduates of top 40 NIH research intensive medical schools. Chart 8 shows the percentage of U.S. seniors who graduated from a top 40 NIH research intensive medical school by specialty and match outcome. For example, 60 percent (51 of 85) of U.S. seniors who matched in Plastic Surgery were graduates of a top 40 research school and 53 percent (27 of 51) of U.S. seniors who did not match in Plastic Surgery were graduates a of top 40 research school. Plastic Surgery had the highest percentage of matched U.S. seniors who were graduates of a research-intensive medical school. Radiation Oncology, Dermatology, and Transitional Year also had higher percentages of matched applicants from top 40 research schools compared to the other specialties. For all specialties except Family Medicine, smaller percentages of applicants who did not match to their preferred specialty were graduates of top 40 research intensive medical schools compared to applicants who matched. The average across all specialties and match outcome was 36 percent.
Pediatrics
Chart PERCENTAGE OF U.S. SENIORS WHO ARE MEMBERS OF ALPHA OMEGA ALPHA (AOA) by Preferred Specialty and Match Outcome 9
U.S. Seniors
50%
47
40%
39
30%
36 31 26
Matched
Not Matched
20%
24 17 12 17 12 15 8
Neurology Internal Medicine/Pediatrics Transitional Year
18
10%
13 3
Internal Medicine
12 1
Emergency Medicine
12 2
Surgery-General
9
0% Otolaryngology Dermatology
12 0
12 1
12 0 7 0 6 8 5 0 4 0
Family Medicine Anesthesiology Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Pediatrics Psychiatry
6
Plastic Surgery
7
Orthopaedic Surgery
4
RadiologyDiagnostic
4
Radiation Oncology
Source: NRMP Data Warehouse and AAMC ERAS Data Warehouse.
Membership in Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA), the national medical honor society, is an honor reserved for students with high academic achievement. AOA membership is limited to students in medical schools that sponsor an AOA chapter. Most, but not all, allopathic schools in the U.S. and Canada participate, and there is one foreign chapter in Beirut. Among the independent applicants, only graduate U.S. physicians, Canadians, and a small number of others could legitimately claim membership. For that reason, AOA status for each specialty in Chart 9 is reported only for U.S. seniors. Data on AOA membership are self-reported on the ERAS application. Even for U.S. seniors, however, an analysis of its relationship with success in the Match is limited by the relatively small number of applicants who are members, by the fact that some schools do not have AOA chapters, and by the fact that other schools elect AOA members too late in the academic year for it to be considered in the application process. Overall, 13.4 percent of U.S. seniors included in this report claimed AOA membership on their ERAS application. Applicants who matched to their preferred specialty reported a higher percentage of AOA membership (14.1%) compared to unmatched applicants (6.0%). As with several of the other measures, the most competitive specialties are able to attract the greatest proportion of AOA members. For Dermatology, the fraction with reported AOA membership was 47.0 percent. All specialties attract some AOA applicants, but for most specialties AOA members account for fewer than one in five successful applicants.
10
Chart 10
250 240 230 220 210 200
243
USMLE STEP 1 SCORES OF MATCHED APPLICANTS BY PREFERRED SPECIALTY U.S. Seniors and Independent Applicants
U.S. Seniors who Matched
240
239
236
235
234
233 222 222 222 221 221 220 218 217
213
209
208
208
Family Medicine
190
Internal Medicine Dermatology Emergency Medicine Radiation Oncology Internal Medicine/Pediatrics Surgery-General Obstetrics and Gynecology RadiologyDiagnostic Neurology Pediatrics Plastic Surgery Otolaryngology Orthopaedic Surgery Transitional Year PathologyAnatomic and Anesthesiology
Independent Applicants who Matched 250 240 230 220 210 200 190
Internal Medicine Dermatology Emergency Medicine Radiation Oncology Internal Medicine/Pediatrics Surgery-General Obstetrics and Gynecology RadiologyDiagnostic Plastic Surgery Otolaryngology Orthopaedic Surgery Transitional Year PathologyAnatomic and Anesthesiology Neurology Pediatrics 202 197 Family Medicine Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 217 228 223 217 237 230 220 215 223 214 213 215 209 210 207 201 Psychiatry 221
Note: Step 1 scores are not available for the majority of Osteopathic seniors and graduates included within the independent applicant category. Source: NRMP Data Warehouse and AAMC Data Warehouse. USMLE scores by permission of the NBME and ECFMG.
USMLE Step 1 scores are a measure of a students understanding of important basic science concepts and the ability to apply that knowledge to the practice of medicine. Although such knowledge is only one facet of applicant qualifications considered by program directors in their selection process, it is the only one that is comparable across applicants and educational institutions and available during the interview season and prior to the NRMPs ranking deadline. Overall, U.S. senior applicants have mean USMLE Step 1 scores of 220.4 (s.d. = 20.3) and independent applicants have mean scores of 209.0 (s.d. = 19.6), both well above the minimum passing score of 182. Chart 10 displays the median Step 1 scores for matched U.S. seniors (top panel) and independent applicants (bottom panel) by specialty. The numbers are the median values for successful applicants and the vertical lines show the interquartile ranges, the range of scores for applicants excluding the top and bottom quarters of the distribution. It should not be surprising that scores are generally higher for the more competitive specialties, but it also is clear there is substantial overlap when specialties are compared. Although, in general, U.S. seniors who matched to their preferred specialty have median Step 1 scores that are higher than those of independent applicants who matched, there are a few exceptions. Independent applicants who matched in Radiation Oncology, General Surgery, and Neurology had equivalent or slightly higher median Step 1 scores when compared with matched U.S. seniors.
11
Psychiatry
Chart USMLE STEP 2 SCORES OF MATCHED APPLICANTS BY PREFERRED SPECIALTY U.S. Seniors and Independent Applicants 11
260 250 240 230 220 210 200
Internal Medicine Family Medicine
U.S. Seniors who Matched

246
245 240 238 237 236 233 231 228 228 228
226
226
226
224
224 219 214 213
190
Dermatology Radiation Oncology Internal Medicine/Pediatrics Emergency Medicine Surgery-General Obstetrics and Gynecology RadiologyDiagnostic Orthopaedic Surgery Plastic Surgery Otolaryngology Neurology Transitional Year PathologyAnatomic and Pediatrics Anesthesiology
260 250 240 230 220 210 200 190
Independent Applicants who Matched
234 229
238 230
235 224 212 226 222 223 224 216 223 215 222 215 209 204 199 Internal Medicine Family Medicine Radiation Oncology Internal Medicine/Pediatrics Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Dermatology
Emergency Medicine
Surgery-General
Plastic Surgery
RadiologyDiagnostic
Otolaryngology
Orthopaedic Surgery
Transitional Year
PathologyAnatomic and
Note: Thirty-one percent of U.S. seniors did not take the Step 2 examination in time to be included in this report. Step 2 scores are not available for the majority of Osteopathic seniors and graduates included within the independent applicant category. Source: NRMP Data Warehouse and AAMC Data Warehouse. USMLE scores by permission of the NBME and ECFMG.
USMLE Step 2 scores are a measure of an applicant's ability to apply the medical knowledge, skills, and understanding of clinical science essential for providing patient care. Overall, U.S. senior applicants had mean USMLE step 2 scores of 224.5 (s.d. = 22.3) and independent applicants had mean scores of 210.5 (s.d. = 21.5), both well above the minimum passing score of 182. Chart 11 shows the median Step 2 scores for matched U.S. seniors (top panel) and independent applicants (bottom panel) who matched by preferred specialty. The specialties are sorted in descending order based on the median scores of matched U.S. seniors. The numbers are the median values for successful applicants and the vertical lines show the interquartile ranges. As was the case for the Step 1 scores, the more competitive specialties have higher average Step 2 scores. For some specialties (e.g., Plastic Surgery, Internal Medicine/Pediatrics, Family Medicine) the differences in median Step 2 scores between matched U.S. seniors and independent applicants are quite dramatic; other specialties (e.g., Otolaryngology, Radiation Oncology, Anesthesiology) show only minor differences.
12
Anesthesiology
Psychiatry
Neurology
Pediatrics
Psychiatry
Chart PERCENTAGE REPORTING RESEARCH EXPERIENCES BY PREFERRED SPECIALTY 12 U.S. Seniors and Independent Applicants by Match Outcome
100%
U.S. Seniors
98 96 96 90 96 93 94 87 94
Matched
90 92 85 88 85 84 79 84 81 83 83 80 79 80 68
Not Matched
92 78 71 59 61 64 77 76 76 76 76 76 77 77
75%
50%
25%
Internal Medicine
Radiation Oncology
Surgery-General
Transitional Year
100%
100 94 88 85 89 81 75 68 84 72 68 60 70 63 49 74 68 64 59 58 74 69 61 57 49 48 60 59 57 57 56 63 57 49 48 100 91
Matched
Not Matched
75%
50%
52
25%
Internal Medicine
Radiation Oncology
Surgery-General
Transitional Year
Sources: NRMP Data Warehouse and AAMC ERAS Data Warehouse.
The ERAS application allows applicants to self-report their participation in research projects. These experiences are not verified or evaluated and likely vary greatly in quality. The same competitive specialties stand out with the highest proportion of applicants with this added qualification. However, because high proportions of both matched and unmatched applicants in both the U.S. senior and independent applicant categories report participation in research projects, this measure appears to be less strongly related to match success than are other measures in this report.
13
Anesthesiology
Family Medicine
0% Dermatology Emergency Medicine Plastic Surgery Obstetrics and Gynecology RadiologyDiagnostic Otolaryngology Orthopaedic Surgery PathologyAnatomic and Psychiatry Neurology Pediatrics
Family Medicine
0% Dermatology Emergency Medicine Plastic Surgery Obstetrics and Gynecology RadiologyDiagnostic Orthopaedic Surgery Otolaryngology Anesthesiology PathologyAnatomic and Psychiatry Neurology Pediatrics
Chart PERCENTAGE REPORTING ABSTRACTS, PRESENTATIONS, OR PUBLICATIONS BY PREFERRED SPECIALTY 13 U.S. Seniors and Independent Applicants by Match Outcome
100%
U.S. Seniors
93
Matched
90 75 78 80 70 80 69 69 56 69 57 64 55 63 67 58 48 56 49 37 55 52
Not Matched
75%
68 50 42 43 54 48 46 48 45 47 35 46 42 44 36
50%
25%
Radiation Oncology
Internal Medicine
100%
96 94 100 94 81 70 74 74 67 55 55 59 61 58 63 58 62 54 45 40 42 47 39 38 46 43 42 45 35 42 46 48 42 33 34 38 81 73
75%
50%
25%
Radiation Oncology
Internal Medicine
Sources: NRMP Data Warehouse and AAMC ERAS Data Warehouse.
The ERAS application also permits applicants to list their publications. This information is self-reported and may include peer-reviewed articles, abstracts, poster sessions, and invited national or regional presentations. It is likely the publications vary widely in quality and significance. Some residency programs may independently verify and even review publications for applicants in whom they have an interest, but most probably do not. For the 2008 application cycle, ERAS has modified the collection of this information to include the grouping of publications by type and is requesting Medline numbers. Many applicants report abstracts, presentation, or publications, sometimes dozens or even hundreds. In the individual specialty sections, we distinguish between no publications, 1-5 publications, and more than five publications. For Chart 13, we report the percent of applicants preferring each specialty who report at least one publication. As one might expect, the percentages are higher for the more competitive specialties. However, for several specialties U.S. seniors who matched show only slightly higher percentages with publications when compared with non-matched U.S. seniors. Independent applicants are about as likely to report publications as are U.S. seniors, and the relationship between the percentages for matched and unmatched applicants is more mixed.
14
Surgery-General
Transitional Year
Family Medicine
0% Dermatology Emergency Medicine Plastic Surgery Otolaryngology Anesthesiology Obstetrics and Gynecology RadiologyDiagnostic Orthopaedic Surgery PathologyAnatomic and Psychiatry Neurology Pediatrics
Surgery-General
Transitional Year
Family Medicine
0% Dermatology Emergency Medicine Plastic Surgery Otolaryngology Anesthesiology Obstetrics and Gynecology RadiologyDiagnostic Orthopaedic Surgery PathologyAnatomic and Psychiatry Neurology Pediatrics
PREDICTING MATCH SUCCESS

The tables and charts on the preceding pages showed differences in many of the measures by preferred specialty and match outcome for both U.S. seniors and independent applicants. To assess the strength of these measures in predicting match success, we conducted logistic regression separately by applicant type. Because it appears likely that program directors in the highly competitive specialties1 weigh these measures differently than program directors in less competitive specialties, the analyses were conducted separately for these two specialty groups. Logistic regression allows one to predict a discrete outcome based on a set of predictor measures. In this case, the discrete outcome is whether an applicant matched or did not match to a preferred specialty. The results of the logistic regression produce odds ratios (ORs). The odds ratio represents a point estimate of the relative increase (greater than 1.00) or decrease (less than 1.00) in the odds of a successful match that can be attributed to a specific measure when all other measures are held constant. It is important to keep in mind the differences in match rates between U.S. seniors and independent applicants when interpreting the results. For U.S. seniors, the probability of matching to their preferred specialty was .75 for the highly competitive specialties and .94 for the other specialties, translating to odds of matching of 3.0 to 1 and 15.7 to 1, respectively2. Any relative increase or decrease in the odds based on the predictor measures should be interpreted with this fact in mind. In comparison, independent applicants have much lower probabilities of matching to a highly competitive specialty (.31, odds of .45 to 1) or to one of the other specialties (.48, odds .92 to 1). Odds ratios by themselves provide meaningful information. For example, each additional contiguous rank added by a U.S. senior who prefers a highly competitive specialty corresponds to an increase of 1.30 (or 30%) in the odds of matching when all other factors are held constant. However, this odds ratio does not provide the overall odds or probability of matching across the range of values for the predictor measure. Therefore, we provide charts that display the probability of a successful match to the desired specialty as a function of each of the significant measures identified in Table 3. Table 3 presents odds ratios for the 9 predictors of match success for U.S. seniors and the 6 measures available for independent applicants separately for the two specialty groups. The number of distinct specialties ranked was excluded from these analyses because it is not a meaningful predictor of match success as defined in this study. Significant predictors are denoted in bold and the ranking of the measures by how well they predict match success is shown in parentheses. All four models were statistically significant (based on 2 tests). However, measures of classification efficiency3 (67.6% to 72.0%) and R2 values4 (.13 to .31) suggest that their ability to predict match success ranged from modest to moderate. Clearly, these models do not capture all the information about applicants and programs that influences the ranking and matching process. Despite these limitations, the results shed some light on how the measures included in this report related to match success. For example, for all four groups the single best predictor5 of match success was the number of contiguous ranks. Each additional contiguous rank added to the rank order list increased the odds of matching by a factor of 1.30 to 1.36 for U.S. seniors and 1.09 to 1.19 for independent applicants. This finding is consistent with the NRMP's recommendation that an applicant should rank all programs where he or she is willing to accept a position and where the program has expressed an interest.
For the purpose of these analyses the highly competitive specialties are defined as specialties where the ratio of the number of U.S. seniors who ranked the specialty first to the number of available positions was 1 to 1 or greater (see Chart 2). These specialties include: Dermatology, Orthopaedic Surgery, Otolaryngology, Plastic Surgery, and Radiation Oncology. 2 odds = probability of event occurring / 1 - probability of event occurring. 3 Classification efficiency is calculated by creating a 2 by 2 table of actual and predicted match success and then dividing the number of applicants who were classified correctly by the total number of applicants. 4 2 R values are a measure of the strength of association, or predictive validly of the model and range from 0 to 1. For logistic regression they are analogous to, but do not have the same variance interpretation as, R2 for linear regression. The values reported here are based on the Cox and Snell measure. 5 Measures were entered in blocks and the -2 Log Likelihood for the block was compared against the full model to identify the best predictors.
15
Table REGRESSION MODEL PREDICTING SUCCESS IN MATCHING TO PREFERRED SPECIALTY 3

U.S. Seniors Highly Competitive * Specialties Predictor Variable OR 1.30 (1) 1. Number of contiguous ranks .................................................... 2. Graduate of top 40 NIH research medical school .................... 1.23 (1=yes, 0=no) 2.88 (5) 3. PH.D. degree (1=yes, 0=no) ................................................... 4. Other graduate degree (1=yes, 0=No) ................................... 1.08 1.90 (4) 5. AOA member (1=yes, 0=no) .................................................. (2) 6. USMLE Step 1 score ............................................................... <= 200 1.00 2.92 between 201 and 234 3.15 >= 235 unknown score 2.22 (3) 7. USMLE Step 2 score ............................................................... <= 200 1.00 2.28 between 201 and 234 2.73 >= 235 2.42 unknown score 8. Number of research experiences.............................................. 1.01 9. Number of abstracts, presentations, and publications .............. 1.02 Model Evaluation: Other Specialties OR 1.36 (1) 1.41 (4) 1.30 0.95 2.03 (5) (3) 1.00 1.68 1.90 0.60 (2) 1.00 2.42 3.29 1.87 0.94 1.00 Independent Applicants Highly Competitive Other Specialties Specialties OR OR 1.09 (1) 1.19 (1) -----1.00 1.06 1.74 1.33 (2) 1.00 1.21 2.72 0.84 1.14 (4) 1.08 (3) ---(2) 1.00 1.34 1.69 1.64 (2) 1.00 1.65 2.87 3.43 1.07 (4) 1.00
2 (13 df)
2 (13 df)
2 (9 df)
2 (9 df)
Percent classified correctly (matched, unmatched, total) 2 R
=535.08, =1115.09, =127.78, =2,327.66, p < .001 p < .001 p < .001 p < .001 N=1,719 N=12,701 N=437 N=11,837 74.3, 78.4, 75.3 71.6, 79.5, 72.0 64.7, 64.8, 64.8 67.6, 71.7, 69.7 .31 .13 .15 .19
*Competitive specialties include: Dermatology, Orthopaedic Surgery, Otolaryngology, Plastic Surgery and Radiation Oncology. OR = odds ratio. Odds ratios significant at p<.05 are shown in bold, the order of the best predictors are noted parenthetically. Data not available for independent applicants. USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 score data were entered into the models as score ranges. This coding allows for the evaluation of applicants in the "unknown" score category and permits the inclusion of applicants who would otherwise be excluded from the analysis due to missing data. For the Step examinations the interpretation of the odds ratios are in relation to the reference group: applicants with Step scores of < 200. Sources. Measure 1 and match outcome from the NRMP Data Warehouse, measure 2 from the AAMC Organizational Characteristics Database and AAMC Enterprise Information Store (EIS), measures 3 and 4 from the AAMC Data Warehouse, measures 5, 6, 9 from the AAMC ERAS Data Warehouse, and measures 6 and 7 from the AAMC Data Warehouse and from the ECFMG both by permission of the NBME and ECFMG.
The second best predictor for three of the four applicant groups was USMLE Step 2 scores. When all other measures were held constant, U.S. seniors who preferred the less competitive specialties and who had USMLE Step 2 scores of 235 or higher had odds of matching that were 3.29 times higher than applicants with scores of 200 or lower. For U.S. seniors who preferred the highly competitive specialties USMLE Step 2 scores also were significant, but USMLE Step 1 scores were a better predictor of match success. USMLE Step 1 scores were significant predictors of match success for U.S. seniors and independent applicants who preferred the less competitive specialties. When all other measures were held constant, the odds of independent applicants with Step 1 scores between 201 and 234 matching to a less competitive specialty increased by a factor of 1.34 when compared to independent applicants whose scores were 200 or lower. However, this measures was not a significant predictor for independent applicants who preferred a highly competitive specialty. Neither the number of research experiences nor the number of publications was a significant predictor of match success for U.S. seniors who preferred either a highly competitive or other specialty. The number of research experiences was a significant predictor of match success for independent applicants in both of the specialty groups. The number of publications was a significant predictor of match success for independent applicants who preferred one of the competitive specialties. When all other measures were held constant, each additional research experience increased the odds of
16
matching by a factor of 1.08. These findings suggest that independent applicants, in particular, should accurately report all their research experiences and publications when applying to residency programs. For U.S. seniors who preferred less competitive specialties, being a graduate of a top 40 NIH research medical school was a significant predictor of match success (OR=1.41), and the fourth best predictor overall. Having a Ph.D. degree was a significant and fifth best predictor for U.S. seniors who preferred more competitive specialties (OR=2.88). Being a member of AOA was a significant predictor of match success for both groups of U.S. seniors. Having another type of graduate degree was not a significant predictor of match success for either group of U.S. seniors. In the charts that follow, the significant measures in Table 3 are plotted by the median probability of match success.
Chart 14
1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30
NUMBER OF CONTIGUOUS RANKS

Median Probability of Matching to Preferred Specialty by Number of Contiguous Ranks
U.S. Seniors, Other Specialties

0.20 0.10 0.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 or More
U.S. Seniors, Highly Competitive Specialties Independent Applicants, Other Specialties Independent Applicants, Highly Competitive Specialties
Chart 14 shows the median predicted probability of matching to a preferred specialty by number of contiguous ranks for both U.S. seniors and independent applicants. For U.S. seniors, who averaged about 8 contiguous ranks overall, the increases in median predicted probabilities were more dramatic for applicants who preferred highly competitive specialties compared to those who preferred less competitive specialties. U.S. seniors who preferred one of the competitive specialties had to rank more programs to reach levels of predicted match success comparable to those of U.S. seniors who preferred less competitive specialties. For example, to reach a predicted match probability of .90, U.S. seniors who preferred highly competitive specialties had to rank 11 contiguous programs, but U.S. seniors who preferred less competitive specialties had to rank only 4 programs. Of course these are median values, and they varied within each group and across specialties, depending upon the values of the other predictor variables. For independent applicants who preferred the less competitive specialties the relationship is fairly linear, with each additional rank corresponding to an increased probability of matching to a preferred specialty. For the independent applicants who preferred the highly competitive specialties the relationship was more erratic, reflecting the small number of applicants at each contiguous rank level. Independent applicants averaged about 4 contiguous ranks on their rank order lists.
17
Chart USMLE STEP 1 SCORES 15 Median Probability of Matching to Preferred Specialty by USMLE Step 1 Scores
1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 <= 180 Between 181 and 190 Between 191 and 200 Between 201 and 210 Between 211 and 220 Between 221 and 230 Between 231 and 240 Between 241 and 250 Between 251 and 260 > 260 Unknown Score Note: Not significant for independent applicants who preferred the highly competitive specialties U.S. Seniors, Other Specialties U.S. Seniors, Highly Competitive Specialties Independent Applicants, Other Specialties
Chart 16
USMLE STEP 2 SCORES

Median Probability of Matching to Preferred Specialty by USM LE Step 2 Scores
1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 <= 180 Between 181 and 190 Between 191 and 200 Between 201 and 210 Between 211 and 220 Between 221 and 230 Between 231 and 240 Between 241 and 250 Between 251 and 260 > 260 Unknown Score U.S. Seniors, Other Specialties Independent Applicants, Other Specialties U.S. Seniors, Highly Competitive Specialties Independent Applicants, Highly Competitive Specialties
The relationship between USMLE Step scores and median probability of matching to a preferred specialty is shown in Charts 15 and 16. For U.S. seniors who preferred less competitive specialties, the probability of matching to a preferred specialty increased markedly between Step 1 scores lower than 181 and scores of 210. Above scores of 210, the increases in median predicted probabilities were less sharp. For U.S. seniors who preferred the more competitive specialties, the increases were more dramatic and continued to rise throughout the range of scores. The graphs for Step 1 and Step 2 scores show strikingly similar results, with the notable exception of how having an unknown score differed between the two tests for U.S. seniors. Many programs require a Step 1 score, but the Step 2 score is usually optional. Overall, U.S. seniors had average Step 1 and Step 2 scores of 220 and 224, respectively. For independent applicants, there was little difference in median predicted probabilities of match success between Step 1 and Step 2 scores lower than 181 and 200; above 200 a more constant increase can be seen throughout the score ranges for independent applicants who preferred less competitive specialties. For independent applicants who preferred the competitive specialties, the median predicted probability of matching decreased with Step 2 scores above 260, likely an artifact of the small number of applicants in this score range. Overall, independent applicants had average Step 1 scores of 209 and average Step 2 scores of 210.
18
Chart 17
1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00
RESEARCH EXPERIENCES INDEPENDENT APPLICANTS
PUBLICATIONS INDEPENDENT APPLICANTS PREFERRING OTHER SPECIALTIES

Median Probability of Matching to Preferred Specialty by Number of Research Experiences
1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00
Median Probability of Matching to Preferred Specialty by Number of Research Experiences

Independent Applicants, Highly Competitive Specialties Independent Applicants, Other Specialties
Independent Applicants, Highly Competitive Specialties
Note: Not significant for U.S. seniors
Note: Not significant for U.S. seniors or independent applicants who prefer the other specialties.
10 or More
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26 or More
Chart GRADUATES OF TOP 18 40 RESEARCH SCHOOL

U.S. Seniors
Median Probability of Matching to Preferred Specialty by Graduate of Top 40 Research School
AOA MEMBERSHIP
U.S. Seniors
Median Probability of Matching to Preferred Specialty by AOA Membership
PH.D. DEGREE
U.S. Seniors
Median Probability of Matching to Preferred Specialty by Ph.D. Degree
1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 No Yes
Note: Not significant for U.S. Seniors who preferred the highly competitive specialties.
1.00 0.90
U.S. Seniors, Other Specialties
1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70

U.S. Seniors, Other Specialties U.S. Seniors, Highly Competitive Specialties
0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 No Yes
0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 No Yes

Note: Not significant for U.S. Seniors who preferred the other specialties.
U.S. Seniors, Highly Competitive Specialties
The relationship between number of research experiences and number of publications and the median probability of independent applicants matching to a preferred specialty is shown in Chart 17. These measures were not significant for U.S. seniors in the regression models. For independent applicants in both specialty groups there was a gradual if uneven increase in the median probabilities of match success across the range of research experiences. For independent applicants who preferred the competitive specialties, there was a gradual, if somewhat erratic, increase in median predicted probability of match success with increased numbers of research publications. Chart 18 shows the relationship between median predicted probability of matching to a preferred specialty and three characteristics of U.S. senior applicants. These measures did not apply to independent applicants. U.S. seniors who graduated from top 40 NIH research intensive medical schools and who preferred the competitive specialties had median predicted probabilities of match success of .98 compared to .97 for graduates of other medical schools. Being a graduate of a top 40 NIH research medical school was not a significant predictor of match success for U.S. seniors who preferred highly competitive specialties. AOA members who preferred a competitive specialty had predicted probabilities of .95 versus .74 for non-AOA members. Comparable median predicted probabilities of match success for U.S. seniors who preferred less competitive specialties were .99 and .97. U.S. seniors with Ph.D. degrees who preferred the competitive specialties had median predicted probabilities of match success of .93 compared to .83 for U.S. seniors without Ph.D. degrees. Having a Ph.D. was not a significant predictor of match success for U.S. seniors who preferred less competitive specialties.
19
AN
ANESTHESIOLOGY
20
Table AN-1
S U M M AR Y S TA T ISTIC S Anesthesiology
U.S. Seniors Matched Did Not Match (n=1,005) (n=66) 10.0 3.0 1.3 1.7 38.1 22.7 2.8 10.9 7.5 220 220 208 232 1,002 223 224 210 238 694 1.8 1.7 3.0 9.1 0.0 200 196 190 207 65 197 195 186 207 54 1.7 1.0 Independent Applicants Matched Did Not Match (n=259) (n=251) 6.0 2.0 1.4 1.6 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 217 215 201 230 157 221 222 206 238 155 1.3 1.7 n/a n/a n/a 206 202 192 217 189 207 205 192 219 189 1.2 2.6
21
Chart AN-1
160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 1 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 1
38 96 12 33
NUMBER OF CONTIGUOUS RANKS WITHIN PREFERRED SPECIALTY Anesthesiology

0
U.S. Seniors
Matched
Not Matched
2 3 52 6 61 4 68 2 73 88 84 91 65 60 1 0 1 0 0 46 0 45 138
9 17 23 9 33 45
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 or More
46 22
47 22 23 23 10 22 8 19 0 16 1 14 3 11 3 10 1 12 2 7 1 10 8 1 6 2 5 21
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 or More
Chart AN-2
900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0
NUMBER OF DISTINCT SPECIALTIES RANKED Anesthesiology
U.S. Seniors 29
Matched
Not Matched
768
27 142
9 87
1 8
1
4 or More
152 61 180 58 32 18 6 3
Source: NRMP Data Warehouse. 1
4 or More
22
Chart AN-3
250 200
USMLE STEP 1 SCORES Anesthesiology

7 5
U.S. Seniors
Matched
150 100 50 0
0 7 <= 180 16 41 Betw een 181 and 190
Not Matched
9 26 151 94 221 0 219 1 130 87 1 36 Betw een 191 and 200 Betw een 201 and 210 Betw een 211 and 220 Betw een 221 and 230 Betw een 231 and 240 Betw een 241 and 250 Betw een 251 and 260 0 16 > 260 1 3 Score Unknow n
250 200 150
62
100 50 0
1 0 <= 180 39 12
Betw een 181 and 190
47 20
27 26
36 30
16 30
19 16
2 18
102 1 4
1 1
> 260 Score Unknow n
Source: NRMP Data Warehouse and AAMC Data Warehouse. USMLE scores by permission of the NBME and ECFMG.
Chart AN-4
350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0
10 9
USMLE STEP 2 SCORES Anesthesiology

12
U.S. Seniors
Matched
11 33
Not Matched
12 11 52 92
4 124
3 1 134 108 2 81
311 0 46
0 15
350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0
Betw een Betw een 181 and 191 and 190 200 Independent Applicants
<= 180
62 41 17
11 2
<= 180
28 10
32 19
32 23
21 29
11 23
10 27
1 4
2 1 > 260
104
Score Unknow n
23
Chart AN-5
900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0
N U M B E R O F R E SE A R C H P R O JE CT S Anesthesiology
U.S. Seniors
52
783
14 102 200 0 22 1-5 5 or More 92 0
143
164
6 3 5 or More
1-5
Matched
Source: AAMC ERAS Data Warehouse.
Not Matched
Chart N U M B ER O F A BSTRACTS , P R ESE N TA TIO NS , A N D P U B LICA T IO N S AN-6 Anesthesiology

600
U.S. Seniors
500
38 26
400
300 482 200 441 134 77 2 82 0 1-5 5 or More 150 87 0 1-5 40 22 5 or More
100
Matched
Not Matched
24
Chart AN-7
O TH ER C H A RA C TE R ISTIC S O F U.S. S E N IO R S Anesthesiology

AOA Membership Graduate of Top 40 NIH Research Intensive Medical School Ph.D. Degree Other Graduate Degree
1,200
1,000
66
64 60
800 51 930 400 622 200 0 75 No Yes No Yes No 383 2 28 Yes No 6 110 Yes 15 977
600
895
Matched
Not Matched
Sources. AOA membership from the AAMC ERAS Data Warehouse, Top 40 NIH Research Intensive Medical Schools from the AAMC Organizational Characteristics Database and AAMC Enterprise Information Store (EIS), Ph.D. and other graduate degrees from the AAMC Data Warehouse.
25
DERMATOLOGY
26
Table D-1
S U M M AR Y S TA T ISTIC S D erm atology

U.S. Seniors Matched Did Not Match (n=249) (n=158) 3.0 8.0 2.3 1.9 29.7 47.8 11.6 6.8 47.0 238 240 229 249 248 242 245 231 255 124 3.4 5.7 3.8 10.8 17.7 226 228 213 241 157 232 234 215 250 99 2.7 3.3 Independent Applicants Matched Did Not Match (n=68) (n=104) 2.0 3.0 1.3 1.3 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 228 229 212 245 62 230 234 216 244 63 3.8 7.9 n/a n/a n/a 216 216 204 229 91 219 218 207 234 91 3.0 6.1
27
Chart D-1
70 60 50 40 30 20 10
11
NUMBER OF CONTIGUOUS RANKS WITHIN PREFERRED SPECIALTY Dermatology
U.S. Seniors
Matched
Not Matched
39 33
26 17 10 11 11 20 22 19 16 7 7 3 16 0 14 2 20 0 1 17 1 11 1 12 0 9 24
13
14
0 1 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1 2 3
15 22 9 13 13 5 7 5 1 4 4 2 6 1 1 1 2 1 3 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 50
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 or More
1 0
3 1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 or More
Chart D-2
250 200
NUMBER OF DISTINCT SPECIALTIES RANKED Dermatology
U.S. Seniors
Matched
89
Not Matched
150 100
12
50
70
126
49 50 8 3
0 250 200 150 100 50

55 14 9 3 4 84
1
4 or More
0 1
3 0
4 or More
28
Chart D-3
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
USMLE STEP 1 SCORES Dermatology

28
U.S. Seniors
Matched
Not Matched
24 23
31
11 59 65 40 3 14 1 1
Score Unknow n
1 0 <= 180
5 2
11 0 Betw een 191 and 200
20 8
23
37
> 260
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
25 0 0 <= 180 6 1
15 11
12 6
15 6
9 10
5 14
8
3 5
1 1
> 260
13 6
Score Unknow n
Chart D-4
200 150 100 50 0
USMLE STEP 2 SCORES Dermatology
U.S. Seniors 59
Matched
Not Matched
125 15 25
200 150 100 50 0
0 Betw een Betw een 181 and 191 and 190 200 Independent Applicants
0 0 <= 180
1 1
10 3
17 6
12 18
15 29
20 29
4 13
1 0 <= 180
8 2
9 5
11 6
22 7
13 9
12 12
7 14
6 5
2 3
> 260
13 5
Score Unknow n
29
Chart D-5
350 300
N U M B E R O F R E SE A R C H P R O JE CT S D erm atology
125 250 200 150 100 50 0 16 10 0 1-5 206 68 17 33 5 or More 20 10 0 39 1-5 16 19 5 or More
Matched
Not Matched
Chart N U M B ER O F A BSTRACTS , P R ESE N TA TIO NS , A N D P U B LICA T IO N S D-6 D ermatology

220 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 1-5 5 or More 35 24 124 101 23 8 0 37 25 1-5 35 5 or More 44 35 88
U.S. Seniors
Matched
Not Matched
30
Chart D-7
O TH ER C H A RA C TE R ISTIC S O F U.S. S E N IO R S D erm atology

400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 No Yes No Yes No 132 117 130 119 130 28 152 141
111 47 220 232
6 29 Yes No
17 17 Yes
Matched
Not Matched
31
EM
EMERGENCY MEDICINE
32
Table EM-1
S U M M AR Y S TA T ISTIC S Em ergency M edicine

U.S. Seniors Matched Did Not Match (n=1,092) (n=89) 5.0 10.0 1.3 1.1 20.2 35.9 1.6 13.5 12.4 220 221 207 234 1,086 227 228 214 241 778 1.8 1.6 0.0 9.0 1.1 208 204 194 220 88 208 206 193 220 71 1.3 0.8 Independent Applicants Matched Did Not Match (n=265) (n=223) 2.0 5.0 1.5 1.2 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 216 214 204 228 140 222 222 205 237 140 1.2 1.4 n/a n/a n/a 204 202 188 217 156 204 199 191 218 154 1.2 1.5
33
Chart EM-1
140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0
14 14
NUMBER OF CONTIGUOUS RANKS WITHIN PREFERRED SPECIALTY Emergency Medicine

8 3 2 137 105 99 70
U.S. Seniors
Matched
Not Matched
11 9 5 10 94 56 65
2 1 0 56 0 34 1 52
108
128
9 19
11 22 33
1 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 1

38 100
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 or More
38 30
32 17 23 18
6 28
4 24
8 12
8 21
3 13
3 19
0 12
0 13
0 4
0 4
0 2
4 4
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 or More
Chart EM-2
1,200 1,000 800 600
NUMBER OF DISTINCT SPECIALTIES RANKED Emergency Medicine

69
U.S. Seniors
Matched
Not Matched
989
400 200 0 1 1,200 Independent Applicants 1,000 800 600 400

140 13 80 7 20
0 3
4 or More
200
223
61 31
0 1
14 8
8 3
4 or More
34
Chart EM-3
250 225 200 175 150 125 100 75 50 25 0
USMLE STEP 1 SCORES Emergency Medicine

14 10 7 2 172 112 2 40
U.S. Seniors
Matched
Not Matched
15 22 212 161 97 215
16 0 8
<= 180
60
Betw een 181 and 190 Betw een 191 and 200 Betw een 201 and 210 Betw een 211 and 220 Betw een 221 and 230 Betw een 231 and 240 Betw een 241 and 250
0 9
> 260
1 6
Score Unknow n
250 225 200 175 150 125 100 75 50 25 0
67
3 1
<= 180
44 10
28 17
26 27
23 30
20 26
125 8 15
2 13
1 1
1 0 > 260
Score Unknow n
Chart EM-4
350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0
7 8
USMLE STEP 2 SCORES Emergency Medicine

18
U.S. Seniors
Matched
Not Matched
13 14 38
15 137
3 8 130 159 3 109 1 58

314
6 21
86
1 32
350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0
<= 180
69
9 1 <= 180
25 12
47 13
19 24
20 19
20 17
7 27
5 11
1 9
1 7
> 260
125
Score Unknow n
35
Chart EM-5
900 800 700 600 500 400 300
N U M B E R O F R E SE A R C H P R O JE CT S Em ergency M edicine
U.S. Seniors
63
823
26 200 100 0 0 1-5 245 0 24 5 or More 87 110 0
133 153 1-5
3 2 5 or More
Matched
Not Matched
Chart N U M B ER O F A BSTRACTS , P R ESE N TA TIO NS , A N D P U B LICA T IO N S EM-6 Em ergency M edicine

600 51 500 38
U.S. Seniors
400
300 543 468 200 69 0 81 0 1-5 5 or More 164 80 0 1-5 16 21 5 or More 138
100
Matched
Not Matched
36
Chart EM-7
O TH ER C H A RA C TE R ISTIC S O F U.S. S E N IO R S Em ergency M edicine

AOA Membership Graduate of Top 40 NIH Research Intensive Medical School
89
Ph.D. Degree
1,200
1,000
88
81
800 71 600 1074 957 400 700 1 135 0 No Yes No Yes No 18 945
200
392 0 18 Yes No
8 147 Yes
Matched
Not Matched
37
FM
FAMILY MEDICINE
38
Table FM-1
S U M M A R Y S TATISTIC S Family M edicine

U.S. Seniors Matched Did Not Match (n=1,079) (n=13) 2.0 6.0 1.5 1.1 30.4 29.7 0.6 10.5 5.7 211 209 196 225 1,076 218 220 203 233 830 1.2 1.0 0.0 15.4 7.7 198 195 185 218 13 205 201 176 232 8 2.0 2.6 Independent Applicants Matched Did Not Match (n=939) (n=1,012) 1.0 3.0 1.6 1.4 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 199 197 188 207 713 202 199 190 212 710 0.9 1.1 n/a n/a n/a 195 193 186 202 974 196 193 186 204 973 0.9 1.7
39
Chart FM-1
800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1
219 584 4 55
NUMBER OF CONTIGUOUS RANKS WITHIN PREFERRED SPECIALTY Family Medicine
U.S. Seniors
Matched
Not Matched
3 57
3 88
0 132
0 167
0 151
1 109
0 103
0 50
1 65
1 43
0 15
0 10
0 9
0 8
0 17
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 or More
184 88 170 126 35 107 34 83 14 70 16 42 6 28 3 29 19 26 2 11 1 7 2 8 1 1 3 2 20 10
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 or More
Chart FM-2
1,500 1,200
NUMBER OF DISTINCT SPECIALTIES RANKED Family Medicine
U.S. Seniors
Matched
9
Not Matched
900 600 300 0 1,500 1,200 900 600

291 599 2 48 2 5 0 1
1025
1
4 or More
300 0
672 210 91 47 31 10
1
4 or More
40
Chart FM-3
600 500 400 300 200 100 0
2 27
USMLE STEP 1 SCORES Family Medicine

Matched Not Matched
U.S. Seniors
3 3 123 208
1 201
2 166
1 170
0 115
0 45
1 17
0 4
> 260
0 3
Score Unknow n
<= 180
600 500 400 300 200 100 0

28 6
<= 180
381 297 161 228 198 74 148

38 20 30
75
10 12
3 13
226 0 2 Betw een 251 and 260 0 1 > 260
Score Unknow n
Chart FM-4
500 400 300 200 100 0
3 30
USMLE STEP 2 SCORES Family Medicine
U.S. Seniors
Matched
0 56
Not Matched
0 1 91 1 128
5 1 121
167
1 111
249 0 71
0 36
1 19
500 400 300 200 100 0
<= 180
309
274 153 86 39
90 25
<= 180
178
174
141
95
35 53
229 21 29
5 12
0 2
41
Chart FM-5
1000 900 800
N U M B ER O F R ESE AR C H P R O JEC TS Family M edicine

523 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0

10
482
688 483 447 7 9 0 1-5 5 or More
385 0 6 1-5 5 or More
Matched
Not Matched
Chart N U M B ER O F A BSTRACTS , P R ESE N TA TIO NS , A N D P U B LICA T IO N S FM-6 Family M edicine

U.S. Seniors
1200 1000 627 800 6 600 400 691 200 0 0
299 5 343 2 45 1-5 5 or More 0 625 271 86 43 1-5 5 or More
Matched
Not Matched
42
Chart FM-7
O T H ER C H A R AC TE R IST ICS O F U.S. S E N IO R S Family M edicine

13 11
Ph.D. Degree
1,200 12
1,000
800
600 1018 400 758 4 200 1 61 No Yes No Yes No 321 0 7 Yes No 2 113 Yes 1072 966
Matched
Not Matched
43
IM
INTERNAL MEDICINE
44
Table IM-1
S U M M AR Y S TA T ISTIC S Internal M edicine

U.S. Seniors Matched Did Not Match (n=2,784) (n=61) 3.0 8.0 1.2 1.0 19.7 38.6 5.8 10.6 12.6 222 222 207 237 2,776 227 228 211 243 1,938 2.1 2.2 1.6 14.8 3.3 199 194 187 209 58 192 186 177 207 39 1.6 1.2 Independent Applicants Matched Did Not Match (n=1,987) (n=2,342) 2.0 5.0 1.5 1.3 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 220 220 206 234 1,748 222 223 207 238 1,740 1.3 2.1 n/a n/a n/a 207 205 192 220 2,303 209 206 193 221 2,303 1.0 2.0
45
Chart IM-1
1,200 900 600 300 0
NUMBER OF CONTIGUOUS RANKS WITHIN PREFERRED SPECIALTY Internal Medicine
U.S. Seniors
Matched
Not Matched
13 106
14 75
7 99
8 160
8 217
3 270
6 265
1 339
0 298
0 279
0 192
1 156
0 85
0 87
0 48
0 108
1 1,200 900
1035
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 or More
600
466
300
255 198
265 185
165 221
111 177
0 1 2
71 149
38 156
32 136
31 92
36 106
14 72
10 46
10 43
5 32
9 35
44 84
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 or More
Chart IM-2
3,000
NUMBER OF DISTINCT SPECIALTIES RANKED Internal Medicine
U.S. Seniors 52
2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0

Independent Applicants 6 78 2 4 2,702
Matched
Not Matched
1 0
4 or More
3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000

1,592 624 301 191 73 59 21 1,468
500 0 1
4 or More
46
Chart IM-3
700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0
5 24
USMLE STEP 1 SCORES Internal Medicine

Matched
7 10 12 18 168
U.S. Seniors
Not Matched
1 1
261
373
476
491
445 317
0 176
0 45
> 260
3 8
Score Unknow n
<= 180
700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0
Independent Applicants 391 484 437 411
269 175 76 39 18 85
34 2 <= 180
124
201
252
306
312
268
182
8 16
> 260
239
Score Unknow n
Chart IM-4
900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0
USMLE STEP 2 SCORES Internal Medicine

22
U.S. Seniors
Matched
Not Matched
3 2 303 0 333 0 294 2 155
846
11 38
<= 180
10 74
5 142
6 206
287
0 106
900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0
451 346 98 17
<= 180
440
380
266 178 98 39 31 110

113
174
229
279
285
262
212
15 59
> 260
247
Score Unknow n
47
Chart IM-5
2,500
N U M B E R O F R E SE A R C H P R O JE CT S Internal M edicine
47 2,000 1113 1,500 2241 1193
1,000
500
13 452 1 91 1-5 5 or More
1155 797 36 35 0 1-5 5 or More
0 0
Matched
Not Matched
Chart N U M B E R O F A BSTRACTS , P R E SE NT A TIO N S , A N D P U BL IC A T IO N S IM-6 Internal M edicine

U.S. Seniors
2,500
2,000 1403 1,500 31 1,000 1222 1220 2 342 0 0

28 706
500
1100 665 233 222 0 1-5 5 or More
1-5
5 or More
Matched
Not Matched
48
Chart IM-7
O TH ER C H A RA C TE R ISTIC S O F U.S. S E N IO R S Internal M edicine

60
Ph.D. Degree

52
2,500
59
2,000 49 1,500 2433 1,000 1708 500 2 351 0 No Yes No Yes No 1076 1 161 Yes No 9 294 Yes 12 2623 2490
Matched
Not Matched
49
IP
INTERNAL MEDICINE/PEDIATRICS
50
Table IP-1
S U M M AR Y S TA T ISTIC S Internal M edicine/Pediatrics

51
Chart IP-1
50 40
NUMBER OF CONTIGUOUS RANKS WITHIN PREFERRED SPECIALTY Internal Medicine/Pediatrics
U.S. Seniors
Matched
1 2 1 1 34 26 25 33 29 0 0 23 11 5 1 1 2 9 14
Not Matched
30 20 10 0
22 14
25
0 10
0 4
0 4
0 0
0 2
1 50 40 30 20 10 0 1
15 33
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 or More
6 5
5 3
1 1
1 8
0 6
0 4
0 4
0 6
0 2
0 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 or More
Chart IP-2
250 200 150 100 50
NUMBER OF DISTINCT SPECIALTIES RANKED Internal Medicine/Pediatrics

3
U.S. Seniors
Matched
Not Matched
218 17 52 4 3 1 1
0 250 200 150 100 50 0

4 or More
10 33
12 13
18 8
6 2
1
4 or More
52
Chart IP-3
60 50 40 30 20 10 0
0 2
USMLE STEP 1 SCORES Internal Medicine/Pediatrics

1 2 3 6 5 4 18
U.S. Seniors
Matched
59
Not Matched
50 34 40
2 21
0 18
26
1 6
> 260
<= 180
1 0 Score Unknow n
60 50 40 30 20 10 0
12 6 1 0 <= 180 7
4 3 3
9 4
4 5
11
3 4
0 1
21 0 0 > 260
Score Unknow n
Chart IP-4
100 80 60 40 20 0
0 2
USMLE STEP 2 SCORES Internal Medicine/Pediatrics

10
U.S. Seniors
Matched
Not Matched
1 13 2 18
4 3 24
80 0 17
1 30
0 32 38 0 17
4 3
100 80 60 40 20 0
<= 180
4 2 0 <= 180 4 2
9 4
8 11
7 4
10 8
0 4
1 1
0 1
> 260
21
Score Unknow n
53
Chart IP-5
250
N U M B E R O F R E SE A R C H P R O JE CT S Internal M edicine/Pediatrics
200
20
150
100 2 50 67 0 0
201
19 3 6 1-5 5 or More 29 0
25 26 1-5 2 1 5 or More
Matched
Not Matched
Chart N U M B E R O F A BSTRACTS , P R E SE NT A TIO N S , A N D P U BL IC A T IO N S IP-6 Internal M edicine/Pediatrics

175 8 150 125 14 100 75 50 25 0 0 1-5 3 13 5 or More 155 106 24 15 18 0 1-5 7 0 5 or More
U.S. Seniors
38
Matched
Not Matched
54
Chart IP-7
O TH ER C H A RA C TE R ISTIC S O F U.S. S E N IO R S Internal M edicine/Pediatrics

22
Ph.D. Degree
300
250
22 19
17
200
150 270 228 100 3 46 0 No Yes No Yes No 186 6 88 3 4 Yes No 238
50
8 36 Yes
Matched
Not Matched
55
NEUROLOGY
56
Table N-1
S UM M AR Y S TATISTICS N eurology
57
Chart N-1
125 100 75 50 25 0 125 100 75 50
87
NUMBER OF CONTIGUOUS RANKS WITHIN PREFERRED SPECIALTY Neurology
U.S. Seniors
Matched
Not Matched
0 5 13 2 7 1 15 2 14 0 14 31
0 34
0 30
1 37 0 22 0 17 0 16 0 15 0 14 0 6 1 11
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 or More
30
25
30 23
16 24
13 22 5 15
0 1 2 3 4
1 17
1 17
0 13
0 11
0 13
0 5
2 2
1 1
0 1
0 1
2 3
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 or More
Chart N-2
250 200 150 100 50
NUMBER OF DISTINCT SPECIALTIES RANKED Neurology
U.S. Seniors 4
Matched
Not Matched
224 7 62 1 10 0 0
0 250 200 150 100 50 0 1

4 or More
64 50 115 56 27 20 17 7
4 or More
58
Chart N-3
60 50 40 30 20 10 0
0 3
USMLE STEP 1 SCORES Neurology

2 4 1 0 50 39 2 41 47 27 0 17
U.S. Seniors 0
Matched
Not Matched
3 20
48
0 2
> 260
0 2
Score Unknow n
<= 180
60 50 40
37
33
30 20 10 0
1 1
<= 180
19
29
18 8
2 21 5 6
39 0 2
14
19
24
21
30
21
Chart N-4
100 80 60 40 20 0
1 12
USMLE STEP 2 SCORES Neurology

6
U.S. Seniors
Matched
Not Matched
1 0 37 1 31 0 20
93
2 9
1 15
0 21
31
0 15
0 12
100 80 60 40 20 0
<= 180
30 6 1
<= 180
33 17
28 21 26
17 29
6 8 26
11
21
6 16
39 3 7
0 5
59
Chart N-5
250
N U M B E R O F R ESEA RC H P R O JE C TS N eurology
U.S. Seniors
10
200
103
150 232 100 50 50 2 51 0 0 1-5 0 13 5 or More 51 5 6 1-5 5 or More 141
Matched
Not Matched
Chart N U M B E R O F A BSTRACTS , P R ESEN T AT IO N S , AN D P U B LIC AT IO NS N-6 N eurology

150
U.S. Seniors
7 4
125
100
52 61 45 127 1 78 54
75 111
50
25
58
66
0 0 1-5 5 or More 0 1-5 5 or More
Matched
Not Matched
60
Chart N-7
O TH ER C H AR A C TE R IST ICS O F U.S. S ENIO RS N eurology

11
Ph.D. Degree

11
300 11
250
200
150 253 100 1 43 0 No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes 184 112 1 33 1 35 263 4 261
50
Matched
Not Matched
61
OBG OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY
62
Table S U M M AR Y S TA T ISTIC S OBG-1 O bstetrics and G ynecology

63
Chart NUMBER OF CONTIGUOUS RANKS WITHIN PREFERRED SPECIALTY OBG-1 Obstetrics and Gynecology
200 150 100 50 0
10 8 6 19 8 53 80 82 14 8 97 98 8 5 3 94 3 76 54 3 37 1 28 0 15 0 21 U.S. Seniors
Matched
Not Matched
20 6 39
7 33
1 200 150
179
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 or More
100 50
41 66 36 29 25 25 25 21 30 17 22 11 35 7 22 5 9 4 19 0 11 2 10 1 0 1 7 0 2 4 9
0 1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 or More
Chart NUMBER OF DISTINCT SPECIALTIES RANKED OBG-2 Obstetrics and Gynecology

1,000
U.S. Seniors 92
750
Matched
Not Matched
500
822
250
10 11 0 0 0 1
0 1 1,000
4 or More
750
500
217
250
236 102 42 37 17 23 1
0 1
4 or More
64
Chart USMLE STEP 1 SCORES OBG-3 Obstetrics and Gynecology

200 150
22 8 3 156 117 132 154 104 3 50
U.S. Seniors 24 8
Matched
Not Matched
100 50 0
9 10
<= 180
25
91
0 17
0 3
> 260
0 0 Score Unknow n
200 150 100 50 0
114
40 80 68 33 22 10 28
87 4 12
5 2
<= 180
32
43
29
35
23
3 3
0 2
Chart USMLE STEP 2 SCORES OBG-4 Obstetrics and Gynecology

200 150 100
13 U.S. Seniors 18
Matched
Not Matched
4 16 88 12 129 99 7 2 104 87 4 41
165 1 22
50 0
13 10
<= 180
12 29
60
200 150 100 50
43 78 22 23
77 27
59 33
37 41
3
<= 180
24 22
24 28
88 11 23
2 2
2 6
65
Chart N U M B E R O F R E SE A R C H P R O JE CT S OBG-5 O bstetrics and G ynecology

700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 1-5 24 196 1 15 5 or More 127 623 208 163
U.S. Seniors
77
163 8 6 1-5 5 or More
Matched
Not Matched
Chart N U M B E R O F A BSTRACTS , P R E SE NT A TIO N S , A N D P U BL IC A T IO N S OBG-6 O bstetrics and G ynecology

500
U.S. Seniors
59
400 36 300 218 450 200 332 100 7 52 0 0 1-5 5 or More 0 1-5 132
161 111 29 24 5 or More
Matched
Not Matched
66
Chart O TH ER C H A RA C TE R ISTIC S O F U.S. S E N IO R S OBG-7 O bstetrics and G ynecology

AOA Membership
900 101
Graduate of Top 40 NIH Research Intensive Medical School

101
Ph.D. Degree
91
600
75
736 300 575 25 259
821
749
1 98 0 No Yes No
1 13 Yes No Yes No
11 85 Yes
Matched
Not Matched
67
ORS ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY
68
Table S UM M AR Y S TATISTICS ORS-1 Orthopaedic Surgery

69
Chart NUMBER OF CONTIGUOUS RANKS WITHIN PREFERRED SPECIALTY ORS-1 Orthopaedic Surgery
100 80
U.S. Seniors 6
Matched
60 40 20 0 100 80 60 40 20 0
9 63 9 8 22 18 6 11
Not Matched
9 14 4 12 18 11 23 13 21 42 37 8 40 53 7 4 2 1 83 2 47 52 54 49 33
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 or More
16 6
14 8
11 1
5 2
2 2
1 1
0 1
0 0
2 2
0 0
0 1
2 0
0 0
0 0
5 3
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 or More
Chart NUMBER OF DISTINCT SPECIALTIES RANKED ORS-2 Orthopaedic Surgery

800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0
70 27 40 9 7 0 4 0 24 23 3 1 0 0 553 115 U.S. Seniors
Matched
Not Matched
1
4 or More
Source: NRMP Data Warehouse. 1
4 or More
70
Chart USMLE STEP 1 SCORES ORS-3 Orthopaedic Surgery

160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0
U.S. Seniors 27 24 10
Matched
Not Matched
26
21 58
122
138
130
1 64 0 21
> 260
3 0 <= 180
9 2
18 10
30
Betw een 201 and 210 Betw een 211 and 220 Betw een 221 and 230 Betw een 231 and 240 Betw een 241 and 250 Betw een 251 and 260
3 2
Score Unknow n
160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0
1 0 <= 180
13 4
16 4
17 4
21 8
14 2
17 7
11 5
0 0 > 260
10 2
Score Unknow n
Chart USMLE STEP 2 SCORES ORS-4 Orthopaedic Surgery

350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0
U.S. Seniors 43
Matched
Not Matched
12 6 61
270 14 34
4 0 <= 180
8 3
12 4
15 26
17 44
74
8 39
3 22
100 80 60 40 20 0
2 1
<= 180
15 5
23 5
12 3
13 8
17 6
10 4
4 1
2 1
> 260
10 2
Score Unknow n
71
Chart N U M B E R O F R ESEA RC H P R O JE C TS ORS-5 O rthopaedic Surgery

700 600 500 400 300 515 200 100 0 19 34 0 1-5 5 28 5 or More 30 4 0
U.S. Seniors
118
89 31 1-5 2 1 5 or More
Matched
Not Matched
Chart N U M B ER O F A BSTRACTS , P R ESE N TA TIO NS , A N D P U B LICA T IO N S ORS-6 O rthopaedic Surgery

400 350 61 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 1-5 5 or More 182 62 297 19 98
U.S. Seniors
54 7 0
44 18 1-5
23 11 5 or More
Matched
Not Matched
72
Chart O TH ER C H ARA CTERISTICS OF U.S. S ENIOR S ORS-7 Orthopaedic Surgery

AOA Membership
800 700 600 500 400 300 39 200 100 0 No Yes No Yes No 401 10 176 346 231 2 13 Yes No 16 74 Yes 140 126 132 103 564
Ph.D. Degree
503
Matched
Not Matched
73
OTO OTOLARYNGOLOGY
74
Table S U M M AR Y S TA T ISTIC S OTO-1 O tolaryngology

75
Chart NUMBER OF CONTIGUOUS RANKS WITHIN PREFERRED SPECIALTY OTO-1 Otolaryngology

50 40 30 20
4 4 9 7 2 9 3 7 8 7 13 17 2 4 14 2 16 0 15 21 23 22 1 10 1 1 0 17 21 0 40 U.S. Seniors 5
Matched
Not Matched
10 0 50 40 30 20 10 0
14 2
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 or More
6 2
1 2
3 1
1 0
0 0
1 1
2 2
0 0
0 0
1 0
0 2
0 2
0 0
0 0
2 3
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 or More
Chart NUMBER OF DISTINCT SPECIALTIES RANKED OTO-2 Otolaryngology

U.S. Seniors
250 200 150 100 50 0
38
Matched
Not Matched
226
13 21 Independent Applicants
4 2
1 0
4 or More
250 200 150 100 50 0

18 12 9 5 3 0 1 0
1
4 or More
76
Chart USMLE STEP 1 SCORES OTO-3 Otolaryngology

80 60
U.S. Seniors 10 7
Matched
40
Not Matched
13 68 16 67 1 36
20 0
0 0 <= 180 2 1
42 2 1
4 6
19
Betw een 211 and 220 Betw een 221 and 230 Betw een 231 and 240 Betw een 241 and 250 Betw een 251 and 260
0 9
> 260
1 0 Score Unknow n
80 60 40 20 0
1 0 <= 180
6 1
5 5
4 4
3 5
0 1
0 1
> 260
3 0 Score Unknow n
Chart USMLE STEP 2 SCORES OTO-4 Otolaryngology

150
U.S. Seniors 18
100
Matched
50
Not Matched
12 22
128 8 33
150
0 0 0 <= 180 Betw een Betw een 181 and 191 and 190 200 Independent Applicants
1 1
2 1
6 4
5 29
0 18
0 13
100
50
1 0 <= 180 1 1
2 2
9 1
6 1
4 1
3 5
1 3
0 2
0 0 > 260
4 1
Score Unknow n
77
Chart N U M B E R O F R E SE A R C H P R O JE CT S OTO-5 O tolaryngology

U.S. Seniors
250 47 200
150
100
213
50 5 0 4 10 0 1-5 26 5 or More 10 1 0 21 10 1-5 0 6 5 or More
Matched
Not Matched
Chart N U M B E R O F A BSTRACTS , P R E SE NT A TIO N S , A N D P U BL IC A T IO N S OTO-6 O tolaryngology

U.S. Seniors
150 33
100
139 17 50 51 0 0 1-5
59 8 1 5 or More 0 17 6 1-5 6 10 5 or More
Matched
Not Matched
78
Chart O TH ER C H A RA C TE R ISTIC S O F U.S. S E N IO R S OTO-7 O tolaryngology

AOA Membership
300 56 250 50
Ph.D. Degree
200 51 150 5 152 50 97 140 109 0 9 No Yes No Yes No Yes No 6 22 Yes 38 18 240 227
100
Matched
Not Matched
79
PTH PATHOLOGY-ANATOMIC AND CLINICAL
80
Table S U M M AR Y S TA T ISTIC S PTH-1 Pathology-Anatomic and Clinical

81
Chart NUMBER OF CONTIGUOUS RANKS WITHIN PREFERRED SPECIALTY PTH-1 Pathology-Anatomic and Clinical
125 100 75 50
1 1 36 1 34 U.S. Seniors
Matched
Not Matched
25 0 125 100 75 50
27 89 9 9 2 3
3 16
1 24
1 25
0 28
0 31 0 19 0 7 0 7 0 4 0 7 0 6
38
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 or More
16 26 10 15 10 19 9 9 3 11 4 2 2 4 2 5 1 4 0 1 0 2 3 1 1 0 7 2
25
33 26
0 1 2 3
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 or More
Chart NUMBER OF DISTINCT SPECIALTIES RANKED PTH-2 Pathology-Anatomic and Clinical

300 250 200 150 100 50 0 1 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 1
U.S. Seniors 18
Matched
Not Matched
288
0 5
1 1
0 0
4 or More
124
130
39 19 17 9 4 2
4 or More
82
Chart USMLE STEP 1 SCORES PTH-3 Pathology-Anatomic and Clinical

60 45 30 15 0
1 0 <= 180 3 15
U.S. Seniors 1
Matched
Not Matched
5
1 2
5 58 47 36 1 18
50 39
24
0 5
> 260
0 2
Score Unknow n
60 45
34
30
36 20 16 7 20 20 10 2 6
30 15 0
2 0 <= 180
11
26 24
12
17
22
29 0 0 > 260
Score Unknow n
Chart PTH-4
100 80 60
USMLE STEP 2 SCORES Pathology-Anatomic and Clinical

3
U.S. Seniors
Matched
40 20 0
Not Matched
1 2 2 18 2 24
100 1 32
5 1
<= 180
1 5
28
39
1 26
1 9
0 12
100 80 60 40 20 0
8 4
<= 180
40 29 18
29 26 8
Betw een 191 and 200 Betw een 201 and 210
25 23
24 16
10 12 13
6 16
1 2
0 5
> 260
29
Score Unknow n
83
Chart N U M B E R O F R E SE A R C H P R O JE CT S PTH-5 Pathology-Anatomic and Clinical

250
U.S. Seniors
11
200 118 150 224 100 6 50 58 0 0 1-5 2 12 5 or More 42 0 1-5 57 115 9 3 5 or More
Matched
Not Matched
Chart N U M B E R O F A BSTRACTS , P R E SE NT A TIO N S , A N D P U BL IC A T IO N S PTH-6 Pathology-Anatom ic and C linical

150 12
U.S. Seniors
5 100 50 131 50 109 2 62 75 59
54
51
47
0 0 1-5 5 or More 0 1-5 5 or More
Matched
Not Matched
84
Chart O TH ER C H A RA C TE R ISTIC S O F U.S. S E N IO R S PTH-7 Pathology-Anatom ic and C linical

AOA Membership
300 19 250 18 17
Ph.D. Degree
200
17
150 259 100 2 183 0 35 0 No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes 111 2 45 1 29 249 265
50
Matched
Not Matched
85
PD
PEDIATRICS
86
Table PD-1
S U M M AR Y S TA T ISTIC S Pediatrics
U.S. Seniors Matched Did Not Match (n=1,691) (n=46) 3.0 8.0 1.1 1.0 23.9 35.4 3.4 8.3 11.6 217 217 203 231 1,686 225 226 210 240 1,274 1.7 1.7 8.7 15.2 0.0 200 194 186 214 46 198 205 176 221 31 1.7 3.1 Independent Applicants Matched Did Not Match (n=535) (n=445) 1.0 5.0 1.5 1.3 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 211 209 195 223 411 217 215 201 231 403 1.2 1.9 n/a n/a n/a 201 198 189 211 419 202 200 189 214 416 0.9 1.8
87
Chart PD-1
300 250 200
NUMBER OF CONTIGUOUS RANKS WITHIN PREFERRED SPECIALTY Pediatrics
U.S. Seniors
Matched
5 5 3 0 1 200 197 1 104 0 97
Not Matched
150 100
12 2 72 7 46 5 54 102
3 132 172 191 173
50 0
1 54
0 37
0 21
1 39
1 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 1

86 239
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 or More
88 61 30 40 27 55 15 48 12 56 4 56 4 39 3 24 8 24 1 12 0 12 0 2 1 2 1 5 12 13
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 or More
Chart PD-2
1,500
NUMBER OF DISTINCT SPECIALTIES RANKED Pediatrics
U.S. Seniors 42
Matched
1,000
1,646
Not Matched
500
3 40 Independent Applicants 1 4 0 1
0 1
4 or More
1,500
1,000
500
281 433 116 71
0 1
38 20
10 11
4 or More
88
Chart PD-3
350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0
3 23
USMLE STEP 1 SCORES Pediatrics

6 4 8 2 297 215 280 325 222 139 0 48
U.S. Seniors
Matched
Not Matched
10 13 121
0 16
> 260
0 5
Score Unknow n
<= 180
350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0
121
107
79 80
26 52 67
35 51
6 2
<= 180
62
77
12 37
6 20
1 11
0 4
> 260
124
Score Unknow n
Chart PD-4
450
USMLE STEP 2 SCORES Pediatrics

15
U.S. Seniors
300
Matched
Not Matched
5 3 2 0 240 221 158 0 79
417
150
9 23
<= 180
7 3 55 1 97 151 187
1 63
450
300
150
99 17 96 45
78 76
29 67 55
8
<= 180
47
32 67
17 43
6 28
4 25
0 9
> 260
132
Score Unknow n
89
Chart PD-5
1,500
N U M B E R O F R E SE A R C H P R O JE CT S Pediatrics
24 1,200
900
600 19 300 384 0 0

1272 217
226 3 35 1-5 5 or More 229 0
298
2 8 5 or More
1-5
Matched
Not Matched
Chart N U M B E R O F A BSTRACTS , P R E SE NT A TIO N S , A N D P U BL IC A T IO N S PD-6 Pediatrics

1,000 25 750 13
U.S. Seniors
500 877 669 250 8 145 0 0

255 151 290 185 39 60 0 1-5 5 or More
1-5
5 or More
Matched
Not Matched
90
Chart PD-7
O TH ER C H A RA C TE R ISTIC S O F U.S. S E N IO R S Pediatrics

42
Ph.D. Degree

39
1,500
46
1,200 35 900 1495 600 1092 11 1634 1550
300
0 196
599 4 57 No Yes No Yes No 7 141 Yes
0 No Yes
Matched
Not Matched
91
PM
PHYSICAL MEDICINE AND REHABILITATION
92
Table PM-1
S U M M AR Y S TA T ISTIC S Physical M edicine and Rehabilitation

93
Chart PM-1
60 50 40 30
NUMBER OF CONTIGUOUS RANKS WITHIN PREFERRED SPECIALTY Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
U.S. Seniors
Matched
Not Matched
20 10 0 60 50 40 30 20
9 4 16 9 7 4 17 12 18 10 5 44 5 4 2 5 4 4 3 9 1 10 4 12
0 18 24
0 0 21 15 1 8 0 9 0 8 0 11 1 7
0 17
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 or More
1 3 6 16 2 10 3 7 0 4 0 9 0 6 1 3 0 0 0 1
10 0
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 or More
Chart PM-2
175 150 125 100 75 50
NUMBER OF DISTINCT SPECIALTIES RANKED Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

13
U.S. Seniors
Matched
Not Matched
144 6
25
25
0 175 150 125 100 75 50 25 0 1

3 12
1 1
Independent Applicants 58
4 or More
112 16 20 10 8 1 2
4 or More
94
Chart PM-3
100 80 60
USMLE STEP 1 SCORES Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
U.S. Seniors
Matched
6
Not Matched
40 20 0
3 5
<= 180
6 19
46
3 29
5 29
0 27
0 19
0 8
0 0 > 260
0 0 Score Unknow n
100 80 60 40 20 0
Independent Applicants 26
74 17 3 0 <= 180 10
14 12
11 9 21
10
3 7
1 4
1 3
0 1
0 0 > 260
Score Unknow n
Chart PM-4
100 80 60 40 20 0
6 6
USMLE STEP 2 SCORES Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
U.S. Seniors
Matched
Not Matched
6 4 8 2 23 3 23
0 22
1 22
1 25
0 10
0 3
40 0 0 > 260
<= 180
Score Unknow n
100 80 60 40 20 0
18 8 2
<= 180
26
75 18 7
16
9 12
1 11
3 10
1 3
1 3
0 2
0 1
95
Chart PM-5
150
N U M B E R O F R E SE A R C H P R O JE CT S Physical M edicine and Rehabilitation

U.S. Seniors
14
125 49 34 137 50 9 78 25 63 43 0 2 0 1-5 5 or More 0 1-5 2 1 5 or More
100
75
Matched
Not Matched
Chart N U M B E R O F A BSTRACTS , P R E SE NT A TIO N S , A N D P U BL IC A T IO N S PM-6 Physical M edicine and Rehabilitation

150
U.S. Seniors
125 49 100 15
75
50
96 75
93
25
25 0 11 0 1-5 5 or More 0
38
11 11
1-5
5 or More
Matched
Not Matched
96
Chart PM-7
O TH ER C H A RA C TE R ISTIC S O F U.S. S E N IO R S Physical M edicine and Rehabilitation

23 20
Ph.D. Degree
200 23 150
20
100 172 133 50 0 10 No Yes No 3 49 0 4 Yes No Yes No 3 21 Yes 178 161
Matched
Not Matched
97
PS
PLASTIC SURGERY
98
Table PS-1
S U M M AR Y S TA T ISTIC S Plastic Surgery

99
Chart PS-1
25 20 15 10 5
5
NUMBER OF CONTIGUOUS RANKS WITHIN PREFERRED SPECIALTY Plastic Surgery
U.S. Seniors
Matched
17 13 8 6 9 4 0 7 8 6 0 7 1 4 0 8 0 5 0 1 0 3
Not Matched
1 4
0 1 25 20 15 10 5 0
1 1 2 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 15
0 3
0 3
1 5
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 or More
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 or More
Chart PS-2
100
NUMBER OF DISTINCT SPECIALTIES RANKED Plastic Surgery

44
U.S. Seniors
75
Matched
Not Matched
50
6
25
59
1 0
25
0 100
4 or More
75
50
25
7 3 8 2 3 0 1 0
1
4 or More
100
Chart PS-3
35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
USMLE STEP 1 SCORES Plastic Surgery
U.S. Seniors 8 12 8 1 22 9 1 0 <= 180 4 0 Betw een 181 and 190 2 0 Betw een 191 and 200 6 2
Matched
Not Matched
14
17
17
4
Betw een 211 and 220 Betw een 221 and 230 Betw een 231 and 240 Betw een 241 and 250 Betw een 251 and 260
0 7
> 260
0 2
Score Unknow n
35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
0 0 <= 180
2 2
4 1
3 1
0 1
0 0 > 260
4 0 Score Unknow n
Chart PS-4
70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
1 0 <= 180
USMLE STEP 2 SCORES Plastic Surgery

21
U.S. Seniors
Matched
Not Matched
49 2 1 1 0 Betw een Betw een 181 and 191 and 190 200 Independent Applicants 3 0 Betw een 201 and 210 7 1
10 4
2 7
2 8
2 10
0 5
70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
0 0 <= 180
1 1
2 1
1 2
2 1
0 0 > 260
5 0 Score Unknow n
101
Chart PS-5
100
N U M B E R O F R E SE A R C H P R O JE CT S Plastic Surgery
42
75
50
67
25
4 5 5 15 13 3 0 4 1 1
1-5
5 or More
1-5
5 or More
Matched
Not Matched
Chart N U M B E R O F A BSTRACTS , P R E SE NT A TIO N S , A N D P U BL IC A T IO N S PS-6 Plastic Surgery

U.S. Seniors
60 50 40
7
28
30
16
20 10 0 0
35 17
33 4 5 0 10 0 5
1-5
5 or More
1-5
5 or More
Matched
Not Matched
102
Chart PM-7
O TH ER C H A RA C TE R ISTIC S O F U.S. S E N IO R S Plastic Surgery

140 120
49
100 80 60 40
54 24 3 51 31 34 2 3 48 27
44
82
77
20 0 No
7 8
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Matched
Not Matched
103
PSYCHIATRY
104
Table P-1
S U M M AR Y S TA T ISTIC S Psychiatry
U.S. Seniors Matched Did Not Match (n=626) (n=22) 3.0 7.0 1.1 1.1 22.7 38.5 Independent Applicants Matched Did Not Match (n=326) (n=345) 1.0 4.0 1.5 1.3 n/a n/a
4.2 9.6 3.7 210 208 194 224 624 213 213 198 229 433 1.9 2.0
9.1 4.5 0.0 194 191 185 206 22 187 191 172 196 13 1.8 3.6
n/a n/a n/a 204 201 189 215 250 206 204 193 216 247 1.3 2.0
n/a n/a n/a 196 193 186 203 320 195 192 184 204 321 1.2 2.6
105
Chart P-1
250 200 150 100 50 0 250 200 150 100
183
NUMBER OF CONTIGUOUS RANKS WITHIN PREFERRED SPECIALTY Psychiatry
U.S. Seniors
Matched
Not Matched
5 7 35 1 21 4 32 64
2 53
2 68
0 70
1 0 79 59 0 44 0 31 0 24 0 16 0 13 0 8 0 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 or More
66
50
61 44
30 26
17 37
0 1 2
13 35
8 30
6 24
5 17
1 13
4 14
2 7
1 10
0 1
1 1
0 0
8 6
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 or More
Chart P-2
600 500 400 300 200 100 0
NUMBER OF DISTINCT SPECIALTIES RANKED Psychiatry
U.S. Seniors 19
Matched
Not Matched
591
34
1 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1

4 or More
224
264
73 41 32 15 16 6
4 or More
106
Chart P-3
200 150
USMLE STEP 1 SCORES Psychiatry
U.S. Seniors
Matched
4 3 8 89 3 17
<= 180 Betw een 181 and 190 Betw een 191 and 200 Betw een 201 and 210 Betw een 211 and 220
Not Matched
100 50 0
1 2 99 1 79 61 0 35
119
107
0 16
0 2
> 260
0 2
Score Unknow n
200 150
120
100 50
16 64
91 25 41 52
36 10 34
48
7
<= 180 Betw een 181 and 190
20
4 14
1 9
1 2
76 0 0 > 260
Score Unknow n
Chart P-4
200 150 100
USMLE STEP 2 SCORES Psychiatry

9
U.S. Seniors
Matched
Not Matched
193 0 0 74
50 0
4 24
<= 180
2 44
6 53 79
0 61
1 53
0 31
0 6
0 8
200 150 100 50
103
75 50 30
24 14 20
43
40
59
50
41
9
<= 180
3 12
2 11
1 5
79 0 0 > 260
Score Unknow n
107
Chart P-5
500
N U M B E R O F R E SE A R C H P R O JE CT S Psychiatry
U.S. Seniors
16
400
300
453
189
200
5
148
100
152 1 21 119
203 8 4
0 0 1-5
5 or More
1-5
5 or More
Matched
Not Matched
Chart N U M B E R O F A BSTRACTS , P R E SE NT A TIO N S , A N D P U BL IC A T IO N S P-6 Psychiatry

400
U.S. Seniors
12
300
7
191
200
328 104 235 188 3 63 50 99 39
100
0 0
1-5
5 or More
1-5
5 or More
Matched
Not Matched
108
Chart P-7
O TH ER C H A RA C TE R ISTIC S O F U.S. S E N IO R S Psychiatry

900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 No

0 23 603 5 385 241 2 26 1 60 17 600 566 22 20 21
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Matched
Not Matched
109
RO
RADIATION ONCOLOGY
110
Table RO-1
S U M M AR Y S TA T ISTIC S Radiation O ncology

21.0 5.6 24.2 235 236 223 248 123 237 237 227 253 51 3.7 6.3
3.6 7.1 3.6 219 227 205 232 28 219 224 207 229 19 3.0 2.9
n/a n/a n/a 234 237 222 241 9 227 235 217 240 9 2.9 5.8
n/a n/a n/a 220 224 206 238 20 215 220 191 237 20 3.0 5.7
111
Chart RO-1
20 15 10
NUMBER OF CONTIGUOUS RANKS WITHIN PREFERRED SPECIALTY Radiation Oncology

0
U.S. Seniors
0 2 1 7 2 5 3 2 3 8 4 6 3 5 9 1 14 11 7 1
Matched
Not Matched
0 0 9 0 5 10 7
1 0 7
19
5 0 1 20 15 10
11
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 or More
5
7 3
0 1
2 2
3 0
1 2
1 0
0 0
1 0
0 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 2
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 or More
Chart RO-2
80 60 40 20 0
NUMBER OF DISTINCT SPECIALTIES RANKED Radiation Oncology

9
U.S. Seniors
Matched
Not Matched
15
75 32
3
14
1
4 or More
80 60 40 20
17 5 4
1 1
3 0
1
4 or More
112
Chart RO-3
35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
USMLE STEP 1 SCORES Radiation Oncology

1 7 6
U.S. Seniors
Matched
Not Matched
32 3 4 10
Betw een 211 and 220 Betw een 221 and 230 Betw een 231 and 240 Betw een 241 and 250
23
24
2 13 0 7
> 260
1 0 <= 180
2 1
2 5
8
0 1
Score Unknow n
35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
7 0 0 <= 180 3 0 Betw een 181 and 190 1 0 Betw een 191 and 200 3 0 Betw een 201 and 210 3 2
1 1
4
2 1
0 1
0 0 > 260
6 1
Score Unknow n
Chart RO-4
80 60 40 20 0
USMLE STEP 2 SCORES Radiation Oncology

9
U.S. Seniors
Matched
Not Matched
73 1 14
80 60 40 20 0
0 3 3 0 <= 180 Betw een Betw een 181 and 191 and 190 200 Independent Applicants 0 1
3 4
6 9
2 7
1 8
0 5
2 0 <= 180
2 1
1 1
2 2
4 4
4 1
0 0 > 260
6 1
Score Unknow n
113
Chart RO-5
125
N U M B E R O F R E SE A R C H P R O JE CT S Radiation O ncology
U.S. Seniors
25
100
75
50
98
25
1 3
2 21 23 3 0 10 2 0
1-5
5 or More
1-5
5 or More
Matched
Not Matched
Chart N U M B E R O F A BSTRACTS , P R E SE NT A TIO N S , A N D P U BL IC A T IO N S RO-6 Radiation O ncology

80
U.S. Seniors
17
60
40
57 58
20
7 9 18 1 3 7 4 3
0 0
1-5
5 or More
1-5
5 or More
Matched
Not Matched
114
Chart RO-7
O TH ER C H A RA C TE R ISTIC S O F U.S. S E N IO R S Radiation O ncology

150
26
120
27 27
90
12
60
94
16 98 1 55 30 69 1 26
117
30
0 No Yes No Yes No Yes No
2 7
Yes
Matched
Not Matched
115
DR
RADIOLOGY-DIAGNOSTIC
116
Table DR-1
S U M M AR Y S TA T ISTIC S Radiology-Diagnostic
4.8 9.4 25.8 235 235 225 245 825 237 238 224 251 471 2.5 2.8
3.6 14.3 3.6 212 210 197 226 82 212 212 196 229 64 2.2 2.2
n/a n/a n/a 229 230 217 242 140 229 230 217 244 138 1.8 3.6
n/a n/a n/a 217 218 193 236 192 219 219 203 237 192 1.5 2.9
117
Chart DR-1
200 150 100 50 0
23 5
NUMBER OF CONTIGUOUS RANKS WITHIN PREFERRED SPECIALTY Radiology-Diagnostic

2
U.S. Seniors
Matched
Not Matched
206
13 15
12 16
12 15
4 26
5 29
4 44
0 3 36 53
3 59
2 65
0 73
1 69
0 59
0 61
1 200 150 100 50

34 123
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 or More
45 18
0 1
23 19
14 20
11 17
5 10
4 5
3 8
0 17
2 2
1 4
1 4
0 3
1 4
1 3
3 11
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 or More
Chart DR-2
600 500 400 300 200 100 0
NUMBER OF DISTINCT SPECIALTIES RANKED Radiology-Diagnostic
U.S. Seniors 27
Matched
Not Matched
562
34 18
162
102
1 600
4 or More
400
200
126 135 65 24 26 18
0 1
20 2
4 or More
118
Chart DR-3
250 200 150 100 50 0
USMLE STEP 1 SCORES Radiology-Diagnostic

10
U.S. Seniors
Matched
Not Matched
14 17
6 10 217 150 172 1 97 0 35

> 260
1 0 <= 180
13 7
10 14
87
46
2 6
Score Unknow n
250 200 150 100 50 0
1 0 <= 180
21 2
33 6
24 14
22 23
28 27
34 28
20 27
45 8 12
1 1
> 260
39
Score Unknow n
Chart DR-4
400 300 200 100 0
USMLE STEP 2 SCORES Radiology-Diagnostic

20
U.S. Seniors
Matched
Not Matched
360 11 78
400 300 200 100
7 1 <= 180
3 2
13 13
9 34
7 46
7 90
4 88
1 71
2 48
3
<= 180
20 2
20 5
31 16
28 24
25 21
30 28
17 15
14 15
4 9
> 260
45 41
Score Unknow n
119
Chart DR-5
750
N U M B E R O F R E SE A R C H P R O JE CT S Radiology-Diagnostic
U.S. Seniors
69
500
681
250
155 13 101 2 49 77 51
124
0 0 1-5
5 4
5 or More
1-5
5 or More
Matched
Not Matched
Chart N U M B E R O F A BSTRACTS , P R E SE NT A TIO N S , A N D P U BL IC A T IO N S DR-6 Radiology-D iagnostic

U.S. Seniors
35
400
300
38
200
298
408
11 125
100
104 33
100
70 73
0 0
36
1-5
5 or More
1-5
5 or More
Matched
Not Matched
120
Chart DR-7
O TH ER C H A RA C TE R ISTIC S O F U.S. S E N IO R S Radiology-D iagnostic

81 72 81
Ph.D. Degree
900 800 700 600

68
500 400 300 200 100 0 No Yes No Yes No

617 3 214 527 304 3 40 12 78 16 791 753
Yes
No
Yes
Matched
Not Matched
121
GS
SURGERY-GENERAL
122
Table GS-1
S U M M AR Y S TA T ISTIC S Surgery-G eneral

1.5 9.2 12.1 222 222 210 235 806 226 228 213 240 595 2.1 2.2
2.2 15.1 2.2 204 201 191 217 93 207 205 193 219 69 1.9 1.6
n/a n/a n/a 222 223 207 236 315 224 224 209 238 316 1.7 3.2
n/a n/a n/a 210 207 195 224 343 209 207 193 222 343 1.4 3.2
123
Chart GS-1
300 250 200 150 100
NUMBER OF CONTIGUOUS RANKS WITHIN PREFERRED SPECIALTY Surgery-General
U.S. Seniors
Matched
Not Matched
2 7 6 73 97 17 24 11 14 7 13 12 16 10 25 8 36 4 50 73 3 60
1 89 1 63 2 60 0 40
2 79
50 0 300 250 200 150 100
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 or More
198
58
50 0
101 45
39 39
23 31
16 30
8 18
6 16
9 13
5 17
4 10
1 4
2 6
1 3
1 7
1 4
7 8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 or More
Chart GS-2
800 600 400 200
NUMBER OF DISTINCT SPECIALTIES RANKED Surgery-General
U.S. Seniors 82
Matched
Not Matched
787
0 1
22
4 or More
800 600 400 200 0 1

287
293
62 49 19 8 11 2
4 or More
124
Chart GS-3
200 150
USMLE STEP 1 SCORES Surgery-General

11 12 7
U.S. Seniors
Matched
100
Not Matched
18 21 167 101 69 163
137
0 84 1 36 0 8
> 260
50 0
4 2
<= 180
19 39
0 6
Score Unknow n
200 150 100
60
75
49
47 33 11 36 6 18
50 0
1 1
<= 180
59 17
38
40
51
62
45
35
2 8
> 260
37
Score Unknow n
Chart GS-4
250 200 150
USMLE STEP 2 SCORES Surgery-General

24
U.S. Seniors
Matched
Not Matched
9 2 1 117 120 84 4 40
100
14
12 5 7
<= 180
217
50 0
8 17
14 38
66
85
0 21
250 200 150 100 50 0
65 21 3
<= 180
57 19
58 26
51 38
39 55
28 53
52
16 36
3 17
5 17
> 260
36 36
Score Unknow n
125
Chart GS-5
750
N U M B E R O F R E SE A R C H P R O JE CT S Surgery-G eneral
U.S. Seniors
74
500
651
226
250
18 129 1 32 142 236 104 11 12
0 0 1-5
5 or More
1-5
5 or More
Matched
Not Matched
Chart N U M B E R O F A BSTRACTS , P R E SE NT A TIO N S , A N D P U BL IC A T IO N S GS-6 Surgery-G eneral

U.S. Seniors
400
48 36
300
174
200
337
384
133
100
9 148 91 137
72
67
0 0
1-5
5 or More
1-5
5 or More
Matched
Not Matched
126
Chart GS-7
O TH ER C H A RA C TE R ISTIC S O F U.S. S E N IO R S Surgery-G eneral

91
Ph.D. Degree
900 800
91 79
700 600 500 400

714 800 537 20 737 73
300 200 100 0 No Yes

2 98
275 2 12
14 75
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Matched
Not Matched
127
TY
TRANSITIONAL YEAR
128
Table TY-1
S U M M AR Y S TA T ISTIC S Transitional Year

3.9 6.1 16.8 232 233 220 243 177 230 231 217 244 87 2.8 3.3
0.0 11.9 11.9 225 230 207 239 67 218 223 206 238 40 2.6 2.2
n/a n/a n/a 215 209 193 235 10 220 226 204 230 10 1.9 3.9
n/a n/a n/a 208 205 188 226 42 213 210 192 240 41 1.3 3.1
129
Chart TY-1
120 100 80 60 40
64 44
NUMBER OF CONTIGUOUS RANKS WITHIN PREFERRED SPECIALTY Transitional Year
U.S. Seniors
Matched
Not Matched
13 6 41 28 3 20 0 8 0 7 1 4 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
20 0 1 120 100 80 60 40 20 0
35 7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 or More
5 2
2 2
0 0
2 0
0 0
0 0
1 0
0 0
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 or More
Chart TY-2
200
NUMBER OF DISTINCT SPECIALTIES RANKED Transitional Year

56
U.S. Seniors
150
Matched
Not Matched
100
132
50
39
0 1 200
4 or More
150
100
50
16 6 17 4 10 1 3 0
1
4 or More
130
Chart TY-3
75
USMLE STEP 1 SCORES Transitional Year
U.S. Seniors 18 12 10 44 1 0 <= 180 4 2

50
Matched
Not Matched
5 5 6
25
7 9
28
33
36
5 17 0 2
> 260
0 2
Score Unknow n
75
50
25
1 0 <= 180 11 1
5 3
6 1
4 1
4 3
0 1
0 0 > 260
4 1
Score Unknow n
Chart TY-4
125 100 75 50 25 0
USMLE STEP 2 SCORES Transitional Year

27
U.S. Seniors
Matched
Not Matched
92 5 0 <= 180 1 1 1 6 6 10
5 9
8 16
7 20
4 10
3 9
0 6
125 100 75 50 25 0
2 0 <= 180
7 1
7 1
5 1
3 5
4 1
8 1
0 0 > 260
5 1
Score Unknow n
131
Chart TY-5
200
N U M B E R O F R E SE A R C H P R O JE CT S Transitional Year
U.S. Seniors
51
150
100
151
50
10 6 14 22 1 23 10
14
1 0
1-5
5 or More
1-5
5 or More
Matched
Not Matched
Chart N U M B E R O F A BSTRACTS , P R E SE NT A TIO N S , A N D P U BL IC A T IO N S TY-6 Transitional Year

125
U.S. Seniors
100
30
75
29
50
85 8
25
56 38 19 5 18 4 9 2
0 0
1-5
5 or More
1-5
5 or More
Matched
Not Matched
132
Chart TY-7
O TH ER C H A RA C TE R ISTIC S O F U.S. S E N IO R S Transitional Year

250
200
59
67
59
150
47
100
149
20
172
168
50
8 30
94
85 0 7 8 11
0 No Yes No Yes No
Yes
No
Yes
Matched
Not Matched
133
Acknowledgements
This report was conceived by the National Resident Matching Program Board of Directors and its Data Release and Research Committee (DRRC). Also contributing ideas and impetus for the work were the Administrative Boards of the AAMC Organization of Student Representatives and Council of Deans, as well as the Steering Committee of the AAMC Group on Student Affairs. The authors owe a special debt of gratitude to Henry J. Schultz, MD, chair of the DRRC, whose careful reading of the draft manuscript led to a substantially improved document, and the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) and the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates (ECFMG) for graciously allowing the use of USMLE Step scores. AAMC Senior Vice President Robert F. Jones, Ph.D. and NRMP Executive Director Mona M. Signer provided support and guidance.
134

Charting Outcomes 2007

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Charting Outcomes 2007

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Charting Outcomes in the Match

Charting Outcomes in the Match, 2007

For details of the matching algorithm, see http://www.nrmp.org/res_match/about_res/algorithms.html.

Charting Outcomes in the Match, 2007

2007 INTRODUCTION (CONTINUED)

Charting Outcomes in the Match, 2007

TABLES AND CHARTS FOR ALL SPECIALTIES

Charting Outcomes in the Match, 2007

Osteopathic Seniors and Graduates, 1,624, 6%

Charting Outcomes in the Match, 2007

Independent Applicants U.S. Seniors

0.4 Family Medicine

Pathology-Anatomic and Clinical

Source: NRMP Data Warehouse.

Charting Outcomes in the Match, 2007

Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Obstetrics and Gynecology

Chart MATCH RATES 3 Percent Matched by Preferred Specialty

U.S. Seniors Independent Applicants

Pathology-Anatomic and Clinical

Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Source: NRMP Data Warehouse.

Charting Outcomes in the Match, 2007

Obstetrics and Gynecology

Table SUMMARY STATISTICS 2 All Specialties Combined

Charting Outcomes in the Match, 2007

12 11 11 10 10 10 10 9 5 4 Anesthesiology Emergency Medicine 9 9 6 5 4 Dermatology Obstetrics and Gynecology 4 4 4 8 8

Charting Outcomes in the Match, 2007

PathologyAnatomic and Clinical

Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Source: NRMP Data Warehouse.

Charting Outcomes in the Match, 2007

M.S. (747, 37%)

M .P.A. (5, 0%)

Source: NRMP Data Warehouse and AAMC Data Warehouse.

25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0%

Source: NRMP Data Warehouse and AAMC Data Warehouse.

Charting Outcomes in the Match, 2007

20% 10% % Otolaryngology

Pathology-Anatomic and Clinical

Charting Outcomes in the Match, 2007

Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Obstetrics and Gynecology

Source: NRMP Data Warehouse and AAMC ERAS Data Warehouse.

Charting Outcomes in the Match, 2007

U.S. Seniors who Matched

233 222 222 222 221 221 220 218 217

Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Charting Outcomes in the Match, 2007

U.S. Seniors who Matched

224 219 214 213

Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

260 250 240 230 220 210 200 190

Independent Applicants who Matched

Obstetrics and Gynecology

Charting Outcomes in the Match, 2007

Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Sources: NRMP Data Warehouse and AAMC ERAS Data Warehouse.

Charting Outcomes in the Match, 2007

Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Sources: NRMP Data Warehouse and AAMC ERAS Data Warehouse.

Charting Outcomes in the Match, 2007