USMLE Forums banner
1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,263 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
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 IMG-friendly (highest IMG matching percentage) to the least.

Here's the list:

Pediatrics-Emergency Medicine------66.67%
Emergency Medicine----------------50.07%
Pediatrics--------------------------37.84%
Obstetrics-Gynecology-------------35.98%
Internal Medicine (Categorical)------35.00%
Otolaryngology---------------------33.33%
Surgery-Preliminary (PGY-1 Only)-----32.27%
Family Medicine---------------------31.82%
Pathology---------------------------31.78%
Psychiatry (Categorical)------------30.52%
Anesthesiology-----------------------28.94%
Neurology-----------------------------28.75%
Orthopedic Surgery--------------------28.21%
Dermatology--------------------------26.09%
Plastic Surgery (Integrated)-----------25.00%
Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation------21.47%
Medicine-Pediatrics-------------------20.59%
Emergency Medicine/Family Medicine---18.75%
Surgery (Categorical)-----------------18.39%
Transitional (PGY-1 Only)--------------16.69%
Medicine-Psychiatry-------------------16.67%
Radiology-Diagnostic------------------16.38%
Medicine-Preliminary (PGY-1 Only)------15.85%
Psychiatry-Neurology------------------15.38%
Neurological Surgery-------------------15.31%
Preventive Medicine-------------------12.50%
Peds/Psych/Child Psychiatry-----------10.00%
Psychiatry-Family Medicine-------------9.09%
Medicine-Family Medicine---------------8.33%
Thoracic Surgery----------------------8.00%
Radiation Oncology--------------------7.69%
Medicine-Emergency Medicine----------7.50%
Medicine-Primary-----------------------6.21%
Vascular Surgery-----------------------6.06%
Pediatrics-Primary Care-----------------5.97%
Medicine-Preventive Medicine-----------4.11%
Medicine-Dermatology------------------0.00%
Medicine-Medical Genetics--------------0.00%
Medicine-Neurology---------------------0.00%
Pediatrics-Medical Genetics-------------0.00%
Urology--------------------------------0.00%

Total----------------------------------28.66%

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;
(9552-3194) / (4947-2722) 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 Non-US citizen graduates. However, the percentages listed above should largely represent non-US 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 out-side-the-match 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 non-surgical 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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26 Posts
?? Table 2 DOES show figures for US IMGs and Non US IMGs!

Would it not be better to do: Number of Non-US IMGs matched / (Total number of applicants - Number of US Seniors) x 100 ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,263 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
I meant Table-1

?? Table 2 DOES show figures for US IMGs and Non US IMGs!

Would it not be better to do: Number of Non-US IMGs matched / (Total number of applicants - Number of US Seniors) x 100 ?
I apologize. I meant Table-1. (I corrected the first post)
Table-2 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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,342 Posts
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 :cool: :cool:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
433 Posts
???

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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,263 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
I was surprised like you but here's what I think the reason is:

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
As I explained in the first post. The reason why these numbers of what we used to know as highly competitive specialties appeared high is perhaps due to the fact that IMGs have learned the lesson and they don't apply to highly competitive specialties and only those with very high scores, USCE, research, US passport, ...etc apply to such specialties and therefore the percentages appeared skewed.
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
472 Posts
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 PGY-1 IM residents were offered prematch? Is there any way to know this kinda stuff?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,263 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
There's no prematch data

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 PGY-1 IM residents were offered prematch? Is there any way to know this kinda stuff?
As I mentioned in the first post. The data from NRMP does not include prematches. Prematches are given outside the NRMP match and there's no means by which we can measure such data.
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
472 Posts
As I mentioned in the first post. The data from NRMP does not include prematches. Prematches are given outside the NRMP match and there's no means by which we can measure such data.
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.
Hi steptaker:
One more question. The charting outcomes (links mentioned here) of the match shows the mean step-1 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 step-1 Please advise.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,263 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
You should not worry

Hi steptaker:
One more question. The charting outcomes (links mentioned here) of the match shows the mean step-1 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 step-1 Please advise.
Average means there's a range above and below. So at 222 average, there's probably a range from 182 to 262. So you will fall in that range and you can match.
Moreover, the fact that the difference between matchers (222) and non-matchers (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.usmle-forums.com/residency-match-recommended-threads/40-matching-filters.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
The Number of prematches & postmatches

I think we can know the number of out-of-the-match 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 2009-2010 was 7144

And the number of IMGs (including US IMGs) matched in 2009 was 4731

So, the number of out-of-the-match 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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,316 Posts
Where did you get the second number?

From this figure we see that the total number of IMGs got residencies in 2009-2010 was 7144

And the number of IMGs (including US IMGs) matched in 2009 was 4731

So, the number of out-of-the-match 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.
Where did you get the second number (4731) from? According to the NRMP data referenced by StepTaker above, the number of matched US and non-US IMGs residents was 7401 in the year 2009-2010 which is the same year you are referring to in the ACGME data.
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
Where did you get the second number (4731) from? According to the NRMP data referenced by StepTaker above, the number of matched US and non-US IMGs residents was 7401 in the year 2009-2010 which is the same year you are referring to in the ACGME data.
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
First, the second number (4731) is the sum of US IMGs & non-US IMGs matched to PGY1 in 2009

While the number you are posting (7401) is the number of non-US seniors matched in PGY1 & PGY2 in 2010 (including osteo, 5th pathway, canadian, US IMGs & non-US 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)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
546 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
472 Posts
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.:eek:
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 step-1 and am in the same track as yours. Aim for high 90's in step-2CK is all that i'm sure that'll get us into residency.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
109 Posts
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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
104 Posts
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
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Top