match day stats

[zero0]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Still the match looked pretty damn good for DO’s going into ortho.

I could maybe see why ortho PDs would favor a degree that has "bone" right in the name. Why wouldn't they? Bone good. *grunts unintelligibly*

A lot of other specialties seemed like a bloodbath though, and not just for DOs.

Wow. After speaking to you earlier this year I can't believe this happened to you. I'm glad it will work out in the end. I'm struggling between anesthesiology and radiology still and it really comes down to what happened to you. I'm sorry.

I feel confident that even in a ****ty radiology program I can become a good radiologist. It seems like something that comes mostly from one's desire to read on their own time and be great. That said, I fear most anesthesiology residencies are not good anymore (just the vibe on here, reddit, and real life) and that even with good stats I have a good chance of being at a bad program in a specialty that it actually matters to go into a good program. You can't read anesthesia in books like you can radiology. It seems like you must train in big cases at a big hospital to learn the in the moment aspects of anesthesia. Even if you don't do livers/tons of trauma, those skills help you in general when you move on to PP attending jobs.

Been seeing a lot of posts like yours this year and last year and it makes me question if I should even apply to this specialty given the odds I will end up in an IMG sweatshop or really **** non-academic department with no respect/preference to crnas even at my own training program. Why even bother? It might be dramatic but as a DO, at least I know the locus of control in radiology is still with me. Ugh...

I did notice a disturbing trend of programs using residents as cheap labor and not giving a crap about education at the majority of places I went to. I simply accepted it as a fact of life, filled out my rank list, and braced myself for 4 years of suck. Some of these were stereotypical crapholes on the bottom of the Doximity list (IMG sweathsops as you say) but about half were supposedly good programs affiliated with big university centers. That's just what anesthesia training is today. Most programs just don't seem to put that much emphasis on education. What's worse, some historically decent programs are trending in this direction.

ORs are the big money makers in the hospital; there's no escaping this one simple fact. As an anesthesia resident, you are there, first and foremost, to function as a cheap CRNA. It's just the nature of the specialty and hospital politics in general. Every specialty has crap you gotta deal with. Pick your poison.

 

[risus_sardonicus]

Thought I'd add in my stats, mostly as a cautionary tale for next year's applicants. DO 230/241 COMLEX 556/622 plenty of research, ECs, you name it, repeated one online 2 credit class. Got 17 interviews, went on 14, 15 ranks... failed to match. Anesthesiology is competitive again. Everything is competitive in the world after 2020 seems like. Be realistic going forward guys, I was going based off the 2018 charting outcomes when I decided to apply where basically everybody matched. Those days are gone. Based on what I'm hearing this year was a massacre.

Thankfully by some act of God I managed to SOAP into radiology and couldn't be more thrilled. Gonna pick up a pack of vitamin D supplements and stick with it.

So you soaped into the more competitive specialty? Wut?

Applied rads this year, and matched (~245/250). I’m very happy OP was able to find a open spot and arguably get into a stronger specialty, but after looking at the list of available spots in the SOAP, I can tell you there’s a reason why those rads programs went unfilled. Of course matching at those programs is 1000x way better than the alternative. So Congrats to OP tho, and welcome to the dark side!!


Sent from my iPhone using SDN

 

[Dr.Bruh]

There's the reason.

DO match rate is well into 90%+ in Anesthesiology for the past few years.

 

[Dantrolene FC]

DO match rate is well into 90%+ in Anesthesiology for the past few years.

I’m not disagreeing, but as one PD pointed out in the medical student forums those numbers can be skewed because it only includes students who ranked program. If someone applies to anesthesia, but never gets an interview, they aren’t included in those stats.

I don’t think that changes the numbers much for anesthesia, but this person was speaking more towards competitive stuff like ortho and derm.

One way to look at it would be to compare the ERAS statistics to the NRMP statistics, but that would underestimate the true match rate because that doesn’t differentiate people who applied to anesthesia as a backup.

 

[zero0]

DO match rate is well into 90%+ in Anesthesiology for the past few years.

90%+? How do you figure that, sport?

 

[Dr.Bruh]

90%+? How do you figure that, sport?

View attachment 300058

This data includes people who dual apply specialties. A lot of those applicants were almost certainly people applying surgery as anesthesia if a common back up and even more common in the DO world. For the actual data that clearly shows a DO match rate of 90%+ is the Charting outcomes.
- osteopathic charting outcomes in 2018 shows a match rate of 90.2% (244 DOs matched and 24 DOs didn't match). http://www.nrmp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Charting-Outcomes-in-the-Match-2018-Osteo.pdf
- Interactive charting outcomes has more data. DOs scoring 210-219 has a 90% match rate (n = 79), 97% for DOs with 220-229 (n = 159), 99% for DOs with 230-239 (n = 150), 98% for DOs with 240-249 (n=118), and 100% for DOs with 250+ (n = 30). Match rate for DOs with NO step score was even 92% but with only a n=25. Tableau Public

There ya go sport.

 

[zero0]

This data includes people who dual apply specialties. A lot of those applicants were almost certainly people applying surgery as anesthesia if a common back up and even more common in the DO world. For the actual data that clearly shows a DO match rate of 90%+ is the Charting outcomes.
- osteopathic charting outcomes in 2018 shows a match rate of 90.2% (244 DOs matched and 24 DOs didn't match). http://www.nrmp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Charting-Outcomes-in-the-Match-2018-Osteo.pdf
- Interactive charting outcomes has more data. DOs scoring 210-219 has a 90% match rate (n = 79), 97% for DOs with 220-229 (n = 159), 99% for DOs with 230-239 (n = 150), 98% for DOs with 240-249 (n=118), and 100% for DOs with 250+ (n = 30). Match rate for DOs with NO step score was even 92% but with only a n=25. Tableau Public

There ya go sport.

People who have no idea about the current state of anesthesia love to use that outdated 2018 data. Figured you'd reach for it 🙄

Let's just wait on the 2020 outcomes.

 

[deleted87051]

90%+? How do you figure that, sport?

View attachment 300058

Those numbers look dismal. Even for FM, only 1392/1894(73%) matched. Am I interpreting that right?

 

[67552931811]

Those numbers look dismal. Even for FM, only 1392/1894(73%) matched. Am I interpreting that right?

No. Even for MDs the numbers aren’t defined accurately (ie no one knows how they defined an ‘applicant’). As a specific example, in table 1A, they show 18,000/ 28,000 US MDs matched. That gives a 65% Match rate which makes no sense since the US MD match rate was 94% and there were only 19,000 ish ACTIVE (key word) applicants . The people simply dividing matched applicants/ total applicants (as we saw zero do) aren’t taking into account this nebulous ‘applicant’ definition and usage. The same line of thinking can be applied to the DOs as well, who, o ya, had a 91% match rate overall. I’ll let you do the rest of the math if interested

 

[zero0]

No. Even for MDs the numbers aren’t defined accurately (ie no one knows how they defined an ‘applicant’). As a specific example, in table 1A, they show 18,000/ 28,000 US MDs matched. That gives a 65% Match rate which makes no sense since the US MD match rate was 94% and there were only 19,000 ish ACTIVE (key word) applicants . The people simply dividing matched applicants/ total applicants (as we saw zero do) aren’t taking into account this nebulous ‘applicant’ definition and usage. The same line of thinking can be applied to the DOs as well, who, o ya, had a 91% match rate overall. I’ll let you do the rest of the math if interested

I'm fairly sure it is but I'll look over the data again because I'm seriously that bored. My understanding is the 60% match rate for anesthesia that I posted above is the main residency match result (not including SOAP). The higher percentage of matched applicants that gets quoted by schools later on because it makes them look good factors in SOAP matches which do still count as a "match" for NRMP's purposes. In reality, the true residency match rate is far more dismal. The figures get even more convoluted when you factor in the scramble to ultimately wind up with the 100% "placement" rate schools love to throw out.

Not to be difficult, but what do you mean by "aren't factoring in this nebulous applicant definition"? How exactly would you factor that in or are you saying the data is basically completely useless?

Edit: yeah I can't find what actually defines an applicant other than "anyone who submits a certified rank order list of programs" which leads me to believe that the match rate in the main match would be 60%, but who knows if that's actually right. I'm sure some people are lost due to withdrawing from the match, etc. but that number can't be significant

 

[Dr.Bruh]

People who have no idea about the current state of anesthesia love to use that outdated 2018 data. Figured you'd reach for it 🙄

Let's just wait on the 2020 outcomes.

You realize how silly that sounds? You’re essential saying “ugh people loooove to use the most recent available data to make inferences to this years data and to try to disprove my speculation based totally on anecdotes. They always go for that”

 

[zero0]

You realize how silly that sounds? You’re essential saying “ugh people loooove to use the most recent available data to make inferences to this years data and to try to disprove my speculation based totally on anecdotes. They always go for that”

NRMP data is an anecdote? Wut

Look, all I'm saying is that data isn't representative of the current state of the specialty and is misleading for future applicants.

 

[deleted87051]

No. Even for MDs the numbers aren’t defined accurately (ie no one knows how they defined an ‘applicant’). As a specific example, in table 1A, they show 18,000/ 28,000 US MDs matched. That gives a 65% Match rate which makes no sense since the US MD match rate was 94% and there were only 19,000 ish ACTIVE (key word) applicants . The people simply dividing matched applicants/ total applicants (as we saw zero do) aren’t taking into account this nebulous ‘applicant’ definition and usage. The same line of thinking can be applied to the DOs as well, who, o ya, had a 91% match rate overall. I’ll let you do the rest of the math if interested

I thought “applicant” is anybody who went on at least one interview and submitted a rank list in that specialty.

 

[deleted87051]

90%+? How do you figure that, sport?

View attachment 300058

No. Even for MDs the numbers aren’t defined accurately (ie no one knows how they defined an ‘applicant’). As a specific example, in table 1A, they show 18,000/ 28,000 US MDs matched. That gives a 65% Match rate which makes no sense since the US MD match rate was 94% and there were only 19,000 ish ACTIVE (key word) applicants . The people simply dividing matched applicants/ total applicants (as we saw zero do) aren’t taking into account this nebulous ‘applicant’ definition and usage. The same line of thinking can be applied to the DOs as well, who, o ya, had a 91% match rate overall. I’ll let you do the rest of the math if interested

Does anybody have a link to that chart? I’d love to look at the rest of the data.

 

[Dr.Bruh]

NRMP data is an anecdote? Wut

Look, all I'm saying is that data isn't representative of the current state of the specialty and is misleading for future applicants.

I already mentioned that 2020 data is not as good as charting outcomes. It doesn’t delineated between people who applied 2 specialties. Many/most DOs applying gen surg will apply gas as a back up. That’s why the match rate looks like that. Check the DO match list 2020 thread. Every DO school post a ton of gas matches as majority university program. I’m not contesting that this year wasn’t more competitive. But when you have 5 years of charting outcomes data at 90%+ match rate you’re gunna need to wait for more data (is next charting outcomes).

 

[zero0]

Does anybody have a link to that chart? I’d love to look at the rest of the data.

https://mk0nrmp3oyqui6wqfm.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Advance-Data-Tables-2020.pdf

 

[zero0]

I already mentioned that 2020 data is not as good as charting outcomes. It doesn’t delineated between people who applied 2 specialties. Many/most DOs applying gen surg will apply gas as a back up. That’s why the match rate looks like that. Check the DO match list 2020 thread. Every DO school post a ton of gas matches as majority university program. I’m not contesting that this year wasn’t more competitive. But when you have 5 years of charting outcomes data at 90%+ match rate you’re gunna need to wait for more data (is next charting outcomes).

If all it takes to be included in the applicant category is one anesthesia program on the rank list as the NRMP says, then yes this probably is the issue. In which case the data is basically useless for all but the most competitive specialties.

I know the actual charting outcomes factor in if an applicant matched, let's say, ortho and will take them out of the unmatched category for anesthesia if that was their backup. Until that comes out, there's just no way of knowing.

 

[deleted87051]

https://mk0nrmp3oyqui6wqfm.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Advance-Data-Tables-2020.pdf

Most people who apply anesthesia apply to both programs that start in PGY1 year and advanced positions that start in PGY2 year. Some programs offer both PGY1 and advanced positions. Taken collectively, the numbers are not as bad as it looks if you at the PGY1 results alone or the PGY2 results alone. The chart you initially posted (which makes it look like only 60% of DO’s matched) is quite misleading without that context. I would bet that most of the applicants who did not match into a PGY1 anesthesia spot actually did match into a PGY2 anesthesia spot and that the overall match rate into anesthesia (PGY1 and PGY2 positions combined) is still over 90%.

 

[zero0]

Most people who apply anesthesia apply for both programs that start in PGY1 year and advanced positions that start in PGY2. Taken collectively, the numbers are not as bad as it looks if you at the PGY1 results alone or the PGY2 results alone. The chart you initially posted is quite misleading without that context.

Yeah the data is definitely more optimistic than the initial number lead me to believe at first. All I can really say then with that data is that the match rate for DOs applying categorical was no less than 60% but could actually be much higher.

And to answer your original question, no. With applicants being defined the way they are, my guess is that the usual "backup" specialties would have misleadingly low match rates. All the people who ranked FM as backup but then got their preferred specialty instead would inflate the number of applicants for FM while the number of FM matches would be low. Anesthesia is a popular backup specialty unfortunately so this data isn't very useful. The only specialties it can be used for likely are derm, plastics, ortho, etc.