









IMG/FMG Forum International Medical Graduates Forum. 

Thread Tools  Search this Thread  Display Modes 
#1




NRMP Match Statistics 2010: Percentage of International Medical Graduates (IMGs) Matched in 2010 (By Specialty)
I've been looking at the NRMP Match Statistics for the year 2010 which is available on the net here http://www.nrmp.org/data/resultsanddata2010.pdf
If you go to table 1 in that document you won't see the percent of IMGs filling positions. Therefore, what I did is the following, I extrapolated the percentage of matched IMGs using the following formula: (Total number of applicants  Total number of US Senior applicants) divided by (Total number of matched applicants  Total number of matched US Seniors) X 100% I've done that for each specialty and then sorted out the results from the most IMGfriendly (highest IMG matching percentage) to the least. Here's the list: PediatricsEmergency Medicine66.67% Emergency Medicine50.07% Pediatrics37.84% ObstetricsGynecology35.98% Internal Medicine (Categorical)35.00% Otolaryngology33.33% SurgeryPreliminary (PGY1 Only)32.27% Family Medicine31.82% Pathology31.78% Psychiatry (Categorical)30.52% Anesthesiology28.94% Neurology28.75% Orthopedic Surgery28.21% Dermatology26.09% Plastic Surgery (Integrated)25.00% Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation21.47% MedicinePediatrics20.59% Emergency Medicine/Family Medicine18.75% Surgery (Categorical)18.39% Transitional (PGY1 Only)16.69% MedicinePsychiatry16.67% RadiologyDiagnostic16.38% MedicinePreliminary (PGY1 Only)15.85% PsychiatryNeurology15.38% Neurological Surgery15.31% Preventive Medicine12.50% Peds/Psych/Child Psychiatry10.00% PsychiatryFamily Medicine9.09% MedicineFamily Medicine8.33% Thoracic Surgery8.00% Radiation Oncology7.69% MedicineEmergency Medicine7.50% MedicinePrimary6.21% Vascular Surgery6.06% PediatricsPrimary Care5.97% MedicinePreventive Medicine4.11% MedicineDermatology0.00% MedicineMedical Genetics0.00% MedicineNeurology0.00% PediatricsMedical Genetics0.00% Urology0.00% Total28.66% Example explanation: In categorical Internal Medicine there were 3194 US senior applicants and 9552 total applicants of which 2722 US Seniors matched and 4947 total matched. Applying these numbers in the formula means; (95523194) / (49472722) X 100% == 35% of IMGs who applied to IM were able to match. Will be doing the same for the 2011 results this March or April. IMPORTANT NOTES: 1) The calculation I used (Total  US seniors) does not necessarily yield IMGs only. Because there other categories that are not US seniors, such as US Osteopathic applicants, US graduates, and 5th pathway applicants. Also, many experts consider Caribbean graduates and US citizen who are IMGs at significant advantage over NonUS citizen graduates. However, the percentages listed above should largely represent nonUS IMGs as they make up the majority of that section. 2) There are other issues that we should consider. The NRMP Match data does not include the prematch and postmatch (scramble) data. Therefore, in reality, these numbers might be little bit higher than what's listed here because many IMGs make it into residency via outsidethematch offers. 3) The NRMP data list applicants whenever they rank that specialty. But the fact that many many applicants do apply to other specialties therefore, making the percentages mentioned here fairly inaccurate. However, I still believe the sequence from the most difficult to the least difficult specialty for IMG should be reasonably accurate regardless of the potential error in each individual percentage. 4) I think the reason why we see Otolaryngology and Orthopedics at comparatively less competitive levels is that IMGs have learnd the lesson and they realize their potential so those with low scores and nonsurgical experience stopped applying to surgical specialties and therefore only those with very high scores and surgical experience have applied and this is what made the ranking of these specialties higher in the list. 5) The sample size in some of the rare specialties (such as Peds ER and genetics) is very low making the statistical significance of these numbers very low. 
The above post was thanked by:  
1TA2B (01212011), Amenah (01082011), appu (04072011), Appy (11112011), ashishkabir (01082011), ayash (01092011), cool_atomic (01092011), dazzles (01082011), dr.Zh (12282013), hedihav_x (01082011), hypermedic (01082011), imcv (09212011), kieffer (01082011), lateus (01082011), lautareses (09152014), Legendary (01092011), Mahony87 (03202011), mary (01082011), Mondoshawan (02122011), MWM1988 (01082011), na1234 (01092011), NAZIAMK (10112011), nsesereso (03192013), Pixie (01092011), pkul85 (03012013), Richa (01202011), robinssmc (12052011), Sachiko (02252011), Shimche0244 (01212011), swwal (07192013), tamta (08102013), tkourkou (01092011), Usmle 9 (10112011), USMLESyndrome (01082011), weimingyuclsabc (04122011), WSeagull (04262012) 
#2




?? Table 2 DOES show figures for US IMGs and Non US IMGs!
Would it not be better to do: Number of NonUS IMGs matched / (Total number of applicants  Number of US Seniors) x 100 ? 
#3




I meant Table1
Quote:
Table2 is not helpful because it just shows who filled the positions it does not tell us how many applied so that we know the percentage of IMGs matched, therefore I am deleting your other post. 


#4




Great list
This is what I have been looking for long time ago. Thank you very much Step Taker,
now we know what is easy and what is hard to get 
#5




thanks
thanks a lot step taker . i was looking for this!

#6




???
internal medicine 35% and orthopedics 28 %
the difference isn't that big...so this means that getting a spot in ortho or internal medicine is almost equal in difficulty? both are even higher percentage than surgery? i really don't understand this point
__________________
You miss 100% of the shots you don't take To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. 
#7




I was surprised like you but here's what I think the reason is:
Quote:
This is a sampling bias as we called in statistics. In other words if you go check for coronary heart disease in people who are old, obese, family history, ...etc you'll find the percentage very higher than what's there in the population at large. I was surprised just like, but I double and triple checked the numbers myself and everytime I apply the formula I get the same percentages. Please go and check the original data http://www.nrmp.org/data/resultsanddata2010.pdf and check if I have made any mistakes in the calculation. 
#8




what percentage of residents in your estimation may have been prematched in internal medicine? scramble had only about 5 places available for IM in 2010 and neglecting it, what % of total PGY1 IM residents were offered prematch? Is there any way to know this kinda stuff?

#9




There's no prematch data
Quote:
Generally speaking, however, prematch offers are becoming less and less because programs are able to fill their positions by the main match due to thousands of applicants and they don't need to give prematch. However, I personally know of four friends who signed prematch offer in IM this year. The percentages listed above do not include prematch data. Which means it should even go higher if we were to include the prematch. Like for example in Internal Medicine it might perhaps jump to 40% if we were able to include the prematch also. 
#10




Quote:
One more question. The charting outcomes (links mentioned here) of the match shows the mean step1 scores of those who matched vs. those who didn't. Currently, the avg scores for those who matched stands at 222 and those who didn't match is 209. Does this mean that anybody under 209 didn't match? I'm concerned because i have a 204/84 in step1 Please advise. 
#11




You should not worry
Quote:
Moreover, the fact that the difference between matchers (222) and nonmatchers (209) averages is not that significant. Which means there are other criteria that plays role in determining those who match and those do not match. I refer you to this thread: http://www.usmleforums.com/residenc...gfilters.html 
The above post was thanked by:  
cool_atomic (01092011) 
#12




The Number of prematches & postmatches
I think we can know the number of outofthematch IMG residents by subtracting the number of matched IMGs from the total number of IMGs entering the pipeline
And we can know the total number of IMGs entering the pipeline from the Data resource book published by the ACGME http://www.acgme.org/acWebsite/databook/dat_index.asp (This book is released after the end of the academic year. ie. The most recent book reflects the results of 2009's Match) From this figure we see that the total number of IMGs got residencies in 20092010 was 7144 And the number of IMGs (including US IMGs) matched in 2009 was 4731 So, the number of outofthematch positions = 7144  4731 = 2413 It's quite a big number... If anyone sees that I made a mistake in calculations or misunderstood anything, please correct me. 
The above post was thanked by:  
cool_atomic (01102011), Sabio (01102011) 
#13




Where did you get the second number?
Quote:
The NRMP data cannot be compared to the ACGME data for a simple reason, there are residents matching into PGY2 (advanced programs) and they are included in the calculation while the ACGME data takes a look at all the residents at all PGY1,2,3,..etc 
#14




Quote:
First, the second number (4731) is the sum of US IMGs & nonUS IMGs matched to PGY1 in 2009 While the number you are posting (7401) is the number of nonUS seniors matched in PGY1 & PGY2 in 2010 (including osteo, 5th pathway, canadian, US IMGs & nonUS IMGs) Second, the figure I am posting from ACGME statistics is only about residents in PGY1 excluding preliminary positions. (I guess if we add preliminary positions, it will be a bigger number) 
#15




Oh Thank you StepTaker...you did a great job.
Someone would say oh may god..Dermatology & Plastic are easier than General Surgery for IMGs!! No, it doesn't work like that. It is because the number of Dermatology & Plastic Sur seats are far lesser than that for Surgery. In other words, just an example: If there are 10 seats of Derma in U.S & 2 IMGs got 2 seats of those 10. Then the IMG percent would be 20% Where as If we suppose there are 100 seats of General Surgery in U.S & 10 IMGs got 10 seats of those 100, Then IMG percent would be 10% So the number is misleading a bit because the big issue is the number of seats...Since when seats of such speciality are less than other speciality means the former is more competitive than the latter even between AMGs. I think this clarification is important 
The above post was thanked by:  
#16




It's mentioned by StepTaker
I think the explanation number 4 given by StepTaker in the first post is the explanation to what you are saying

#17




hello
hello! i am scared that i got 86 in 1st step n second step not yet given. I don't know I may have chance of matching if i procceed further.

#18




that depends on many factors such as years since graduation, US clinical experience and other step scores, etc... But that too for progams like IM, FM and peds. I have an 84 on step1 and am in the same track as yours. Aim for high 90's in step2CK is all that i'm sure that'll get us into residency.

#19




IM vs EM
Hello,
I am tied between these two residency choices which I find impossible to decide. The statistics given here are showing a higher percentage of EM match than IM. Which field has a better chance of getting matched? 
#20




Emergency medicine?
Hi,
Im finding it a little difficult to understand the list, but is it safe to assume that more IMG's are being accepted to EM positions? I personally havent heard of any IMG matching in EM? Thoughts/Opinions please, Thanx 
#21




Quote:
Quote:
Probably due to the lesser number of IMG's wanting to go into EM (i.e. Smaller Sample Size [n=<1]) this prematurely increases matching %. EM is now more competitive imo as compared to good IM programs. 100 People applying for IM and 50 being accepted = 50% 10 People applying for EM and 8 getting in = 80%
__________________
PGY3 To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. 
#22




I am scared
Honestly, these numbers gave me a real scare. I was counting on IM/FM thinking FM would be a little easier for IMGs to get into. I was wrong. Seriously, after a very poor (188/75) step 1 score, I don't know whether I should go for step 2 CK and aim for a dream residency in the US.
I am an IMG (Bangladesh, 2007), did MPH (Australia, 2009), one year fellowship in a US medical school which involved clinical observation, creating disease specific health literacy materials for the university hospital to be used by the hospital administration/ nurses/ doctors. Currently, involved in pandemic influenza research funded by the CDC in my own country. I will need a visa (J1/H1b) for the US. I am dejected right now. Is there any light at the end of the tunnel? Will I be filtered out for this very very low step 1 score? 
#23




hav u calculated such stats for 2011 match?

Tags 
Match2010, MatchProbability, NRMP 
Thread Tools  Search this Thread 
Display Modes  

Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
How did you match in 2010?  StepTaker  IMG Residency Match Forum  6  08052010 10:38 AM 
Early Reports of the 2010 Match has been released  Sabio  IMG/FMG Forum  1  04252010 07:45 AM 
2010 Match: Unmatched Applicants Thread  StepTaker  IMG Residency Match Forum  5  03192010 02:12 PM 
how could i join the match on next sept. 2010  ghaleb  IMG Residency Match Forum  1  01062010 04:10 PM 
