US Medical Licensing Examination Step Research Articles

Matching Against Men: 5 Years of Residency Match Data Show Disparities Still Exist.

Despite progress toward equal representation by sex in medical practice, women remain underrepresented in many specialties. This study sought to examine the current state of gender equality among recently graduated doctors in multiple specialties. Deidentified demographics, standardized examination scores, and Match results were gathered for 829 graduates. Participants were selected from an allopathic medical school between 2016 and 2020. Nineteen students (2.29%) were excluded from the study. Descriptive statistics were calculated, and χ2 tests for independence were used to compare proportions between reported sex and specialty and program Match results. One-way analysis of variance was then performed to test for differences in US Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 and Step 2 scores between sexes. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Of the 829 individuals studied, 44.6% were women. A significantly smaller proportion of women matched into the most competitive specialties, despite no significant difference in US Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 scores between sexes. Furthermore, there was an overall significant trend of women matching into more competitive programs for any given specialty. In this study, we found that men matched into more highly competitive specialties, whereas women matched into more competitive residency program locations. Further research is needed to determine why women matched into specific specialties at lower rates than their male peers and seek to understand how sex affects the narrative of specialty choice.

Advising Orthopaedic Hopefuls in the Wake of a Pass/Fail US Medical Licensing Examination Step 1: A Proposed Method for Predicting US Medical Licensing Examination Step 2 Clinical Knowledge Outcomes.

Matching into orthopaedic residency has become difficult, and the US Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 transition to pass/fail scoring has complicated the process. Advisors' ability to mentor students has decreased, and program directors may rely on Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) scores in selecting which candidates to interview. This study aims to offer a method to predict Step 2 CK outcomes based on preadmission and preclinical performance. The study investigated 486 students from a US medical school who enrolled in 2017 and 2018. Data on demographics, preadmission, and preclinical performance were collected. Before model creation, it was found that sex, Medical College Admission Test scores, Comprehensive Basic Science Examination performance, and preclinical curriculum performance produced optimal models. Multivariate ordinal logistic regression models were built to predict probabilities of four outcome levels of Step 2 CK: <235, 235 to 249, 250 to 265, and >265. Finally, nomograms were created to visualize probability calculations. Each model's odds ratios revealed that female sex, higher MCAT scores, and better Comprehensive Basic Science Examination and preclinical performance were associated with an increased likelihood of being in higher Step 2 CK scoring groups. Preclinical performance had a profound effect, especially for those in the top 1/3. Models were successful in assigning higher probabilities to students in higher Step 2 CK scoring groups in more than 80% of instances. Nomograms presented provide examples of how to apply these models to an individual student. This study presents a novel method for predicting probabilities of Step 2 CK outcomes that can be used to mentor students at a time point when Step 1 previously filled this role. It may assist in identifying orthopaedic hopefuls at risk of performing poorly on Step 2 CK and can foster the development of individualized guidance and mitigation strategies.

Sex and Racial and Ethnic Diversity Among Ophthalmology Subspecialty Fellowship Applicants

Physician-patient concordance in sex and race is associated with improved patient outcomes. Studies have explored diversity among ophthalmology residents and faculty, but to our knowledge, not among ophthalmology fellows. To assess diversity by sex and race and ethnicity among fellowship applicants in ophthalmology subspecialties and compare match rates by applicants' sex and underrepresented in medicine (URiM) status. This cohort study examined ophthalmology subspecialty fellowship data from the 2021 San Francisco Match. Applicant characteristics were stratified by sex and URiM status and compared using χ2, Mann-Whitney U, and median tests. For applicants who matched, the percentages of female and URiM applicants were compared among the ophthalmic subspecialties. A multivariable logistic regression model was used to assess the association of applicant characteristics with their match outcomes. Included in the sample were 537 candidates who applied for an ophthalmology fellowship using the 2021 San Francisco Match; 224 applicants (42.6%) were female, and 60 applicants (12.9%) had URiM status. Females and males had similar match rates (70.5% [n = 158] and 69.2% [n = 209], respectively; P = .74), but females had a higher median (IQR) US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) score (248 [240-258] vs 245 [234-254]; P = .01). The pediatric ophthalmology subspecialty had the highest percentage of female matched applicants (67.5%; 27 of 40 matched applicants), while the retina subspecialty had the highest percentage of males (68.9%; 84 of 122 matched applicants). URiM applicants had lower match rates (55.0%, n = 33) than non-URiM applicants (72.2%, n = 293; P = .007). The URiM applicants had lower median (IQR) scores on the USMLE Step 1 (238 [227-247]) compared with Asian applicants (246 [235-254]) and White applicants (243 [231-252]; P = .04). Additionally, URIM applicants submitted fewer median (IQR) applications (10 [1-23]) than Asian (21 [8-37]) and White (17 [8-32]; P = .001) applicants and completed fewer interviews (median [IQR], 2 [0-11]) than Asian (median [IQR], 12 [3-18]) and White applicants (median [IQR], 8 [1-14]; P = .001). Among matched fellows in each subspecialty, URiM applicants comprised 13.9% (n = 11) in glaucoma, 10% (n = 4) in pediatric ophthalmology, 7.3% (n = 6) in cornea, and 6.6% (n = 8) in retina. Ophthalmology subspecialty fellowship match rates were lower for URiM vs non-URiM applicants in 2021. Underrepresentation of females exists in the retina subspecialty, while racial and ethnic differences exist in all ophthalmology subspecialty fellowships examined. Monitoring trends in fellowship diversity over time should help inform where targeted efforts could improve diversity.

Assessing Gender Differences in Technical Skills and Confidence in Orthopaedic Surgery Residency Applicants.

Variations in confidence for procedural skills have been demonstrated when comparing male and female medical students in surgical training. This study investigates whether differences in technical skill and self-reported confidence exist between male and female medical students applying to orthopaedic residency. All medical students (2017 to 2020) invited to interview at a single orthopaedic residency program were prospectively evaluated on their technical skills and self-reported confidence. Objective evaluation of technical skill included scores for a suturing task as evaluated by faculty graders. Self-reported confidence in technical skills was assessed before and after completing the assigned task. Scores for male and female students were compared by age, self-identified race/ethnicity, number of publications at the time of application, athletic background, and US Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 score. Two hundred sixteen medical students were interviewed, of which 73% were male (n = 158). No gender differences were observed in suture task technical skill scores or mean difference in simultaneous visual task scores. The mean change from pre-task and post-task self-reported confidence scores was similar between sexes. Although female students trended toward lower post-task self-reported confidence scores compared with male students, this did not achieve statistical significance. Lower self-reported confidence was associated with a higher US Medical Licensing Examination score and with attending a private medical school. No difference in technical skill or confidence was found between male and female applicants to a single orthopaedic surgery residency program. Female applicants trended toward self-reporting lower confidence than male applicants in post-task evaluations. Differences in confidence have been shown previously in surgical trainees, which may suggest that differences in skill and confidence may develop during residency training.

Effectiveness of an Orthopaedic Trauma Research Fellowship to Produce Successfully Matching Residents.

Orthopaedics is becoming increasingly competitive. Approximately 25% of applicants to orthopaedic surgery go unmatched each year. The mean US Medical Licensing Examination step scores and average publication numbers have increased markedly in recent years. Reapplicants have a match rate of <60%. This study describes the results of an orthopaedic trauma research fellowship and its effectiveness in obtaining a successful orthopaedic match. A 1 to 2-year research fellowship was established at a level 1 academic trauma center. Prefellowship and fellowship metrics of 11 fellows were recorded, including undergraduate and medical schools; step-1 + step-2 scores; Alpha Omega Alpha appointment; and publication, podium, poster, and chapter accomplishments. The average step-1 score of the fellows was 218 (range, 192 to 252) and 232 (range, 212 to 254) for step-2. Seven of 11 fellows were reapplicants. Prefellowship, the average number of journal publications was 1, one podium, two posters, and zero textbook chapters. During fellowship, the average publications was 5, five podiums, six posters, and 1.5 textbook chapters. Ten of 11 fellows successfully matched into an orthopaedic residency, with six of seven being reapplicants. Six of 7 reapplying fellows (86%) successfully matched highlighting the effectiveness of this fellowship. Research fellowships should be considered as an excellent choice for applicants who may be less than ideal candidates or reapplicants.

Characterization of Applicant Preference Signals, Invitations for Interviews, and Inclusion on Match Lists for Residency Positions in Urology

Preference signals were to be implemented in over 15 specialties during the 2022-2023 residency match. Analyzing results from the implementation of signals during the American Urological Association (AUA) urology match may inform future behavior. To characterize applicant and program signal usage and results in the Society of Academic Urology and AUA databases with respect to interview invites and rank list creation. This cohort study involved all applicants and residencies in the 2021-2022 AUA match with data analysis conducted in April through July 2022. Five signals indicating interest. Using verified match and survey data reported by applicants and programs, a logistic regression was performed on applicant factors associated with obtaining an interview-the main outcome (using inclusion on rank list as a proxy): age, gender, degree (MD or DO), dispersal of signal, US senior status, racial minority group status, Latino ethnicity, international medical graduate status, presence of a home program, AUA geographic section, and US Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 score. Applicant signal dispersal strategies were stratified by applicant and program competitiveness, as well as program behavior upon receipt of signal with respect to extending interviews and rank list ordering of applicants. A total of 2659 signals were sent by 553 candidates (mean [SD] age, 27.4 [2.9] years; 179 female [32.4%], 243 racial minority candidates [61.2%]) submitting rank lists for 364 positions at 143 programs. Programs received a median (IQR) of 352 (295-411) applications and were signaled to a median of 16 (8-26) times each. In a logistic regression estimating interview status, geographic proximity (OR, 3.25; 95% CI, 2.05-5.15; P = .001) and signal status (OR, 6.04; 95% CI, 3.50-10.40; P < .001) were associated with receiving an interview. Using multiple imputation by chained equations to impute missing data and broadening the data set, male gender (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.45-0.92; P = .04) and international medical graduate status (OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.15-0.81; P = .04) were negative variables, while MD degree (OR, 2.36; 95% CI, 1.27-4.36; P = .02) and US senior status (OR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.13-3.23; P = .04) were positive variables. This study of the usage and trends of the newly added preference signals reported the most common strategies for signal dispersal; in an analysis of factors involved in obtaining an interview, geographic similarity between applicant and program and preference signal usage were associated with successful applications.

Analyses of Orthopaedic Surgery Residency Interviews.

We retrospectively reviewed the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 residency interview cycles, both conducted virtually due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Residency application (i.e., applicant demographic and academic backgrounds) and interview data (i.e., faculty interviewer scores) were recorded. Interobserver reliability among faculty interviewers was calculated. Statistical analysis was performed to determine factors associated with ranking of applicants. There were 195 included applicants from the 2020 and 2021 interview cycles. There was no true agreement of interviewers' scoring of shared applicants (kappa intraclass coefficient range 0-0.2). Applicant factors associated with being ranked include applying to the match for the first time, USMLE Step 1 and 2 scores, educational break (vs. consecutive completion of college and medical school in 4 years each), higher class rank, and greater interviewer scores. Factors associated with better rank included additional degrees (i.e., PhD or MBA), couples match, AOA designation, educational break, underrepresented minority status, and notable attributes (i.e., collegiate athletics or Eagle Scout participation). Factors associated with worse rank included male sex, international medical graduate, prior match history, science major, extended research (i.e., >1 year spent in a research role), and home medical school students. There was significant variability and no reliability at our institution among faculty interviewers' applicant ratings. Being ranked was based more on academic record and interview performance while final rank number seemed based on applicant qualities. The removal of merit-based objective applicant measurements offers challenges to optimal residency applicant and program match. III (retrospective cohort study).

Diversity in Orthopaedic Surgery Residencies Based on Allopathic Medical School Affiliation.

All 202 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited orthopaedics programs were divided into 2 groups: Group 1 consisted of residency programs without an affiliated allopathic medical school, and Group 2 consisted of programs with an affiliated allopathic medical school. Affiliations were determined by cross-referencing the ACGME residency program list with the medical school list published by Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). Program and resident characteristics were then compiled using AAMC's Residency Explorer including region, program setting, number of residents, and osteopathic recognition. Resident characteristics included race, gender, experiences (work, volunteer, and research), peer-reviewed publications, and US Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 scores. Of the 202 ACGME-accredited orthopaedics residencies, Group 1 had 61 (30.2%) programs, and Group 2 had 141 (69.8%) programs. Group 2 had larger programs (4.9 vs. 3.2 resident positions/year; p < 0.001) and 1.7 times the number of residency applicants (655.8 vs. 385.5; p < 0.001). Most Group 2 residents were allopathic medical school graduates, 95.5%, compared with 41.6% in Group 1. Group 1 had 57.0% osteopathic medical school graduates, compared with 2.9% in Group 2. There were 6.1% more White residents in Group 1 residencies (p = 0.025), and Group 2 residencies consisted of 3.5% more Black residents in relation to Group 1 (p = 0.03). Academic performance metrics were comparable between the 2 groups (p > 0.05). This study demonstrated that candidates who successfully match into an orthopaedic surgery residency program achieve high academic performance, regardless of whether the program was affiliated with an allopathic medical school. Differences may be influenced by increased representation of minority faculty, greater demand for allopathic residents, or stronger emphasis on promotion of diversity in those residency programs. Available on reasonable request. Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Removing or Only Moving a Barrier? Screening Applications with US Medical Licensing Examination Step 2CK Instead of Step 1 May Benefit Women but Not Underrepresented Minorities in Orthopaedics.

We reviewed all 855 Electronic Residency Application Service applications submitted to the University of Pennsylvania's orthopaedic surgery residency program in the 2020-2021 cycle. Applicant age, sex, medical school of graduation, self-identified race, and permanent zip code were evaluated for association with Step 1 and Step 2CK scores using a 2-sample t test. A multivariable linear regression analysis was conducted to understand the predictive value of demographic features and medical school features on Step 1 and 2CK scores. Multivariable linear regression revealed both Step 1 and 2CK scores were lower for applicants of URM status (Step 1: p < 0.001; Step 2CK: p < 0.001) and from international medical schools (p = 0.043; p = 0.006). Step 1 scores but not Step 2CK scores were lower for applicants who were women (p < 0.001; p = 0.730), ≥30 years of age (p < 0.001; p = 0.079), and from medical schools outside the top 25 in National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding or US News and World Report (USNWR) ranking (p = 0.001; p = 0.193). Conversion of Step 1 grading to Pass/Fail may reduce barriers for groups with lower average Step 1 scores (URM, female, ≥30 years of age, and from institutions with lower NIH funding or USNWR rankings). However, if Step 2CK scores replace Step 1 as a screening tool, groups with lower Step 2CK scores, notably URM applicants, may not experience this benefit. Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

A 5-Year Update and Comparison of Factors Related to the Sex Diversity of Orthopaedic Residency Programs in the United States.

The American Medical Association Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database was used to identify all allopathic orthopaedic surgery residency programs during the 2021 to 2022 academic year. The number of female residents and interns; the number of female faculty, professors, and associate professors; and the number of women in leadership positions were compared with data from the academic year 2016 to 2017. Continuous data were analyzed with independent t-tests, and significance was set at p < 0.05. A total of 696 female residents (19.2%) were identified from 3,624 orthopaedic residents, an increase from 13.5% in 2016. Programs in the top quartile of female residents had 3 times the number of female residents per program when compared to other quartiles and almost double the number of female interns per program. Programs in the top quartile of female residents had a significantly greater number of female faculty per program than the lower quartiles; 5.76 vs. 4.18. Compared with 2016 to 2017, there were significant increases in female faculty per program from 2.77 to 4.54 along with female full professors from 0.274 to 0.694. These increases contribute to the overall growth in the number of women in leadership positions per program over the past 5 years to 1.01 from 0.35 (p < 0.001). In the past 5 years, the percentage of female residents has increased from 13.5% to 19.2%. Furthermore, women make up 22.1% of interns. Orthopaedic surgery residency programs with higher percentages of female faculty had higher numbers of female residents. By encouraging programs to promote female representation within leadership and residents, we may continue to see the gap in orthopaedic sex diversity close. III.

Results of a National Survey of Program Directors’ Perspectives on a Pass/Fail US Medical Licensing Examination Step 1

This survey study of medical residency program directors assesses differences in the relative importance of the US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 in resident selection following its transition to pass/fail evaluation.

Step Siblings: a Novel Peer-Mentorship Program for Medical Student Wellness During USMLE Step 1 Preparation.

IntroductionThe US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 exam has proven a difficult stressor for medical students during their training, even with the advent of pass-fail scoring. The preparation period before the exam places students at high risk for burnout and depression, leading to impaired exam performance and other serious consequences including suicide. Many medical schools already provide academic support for students during USMLE Step 1 preparation, yet to date, there are no published programs specifically geared towards mental health support during this time.MethodsStudents from the Larner College of Medicine at the University of Vermont developed the “Step-Siblings” program to partner pre-clinical level students preparing for Step 1 (Little Sibs) with clinical-level students (Big Sibs) in an effort to promote near-peer mentorship and support for those studying. Big Sibs were trained to offer emotional support and wellness advice, but specifically not to provide academic counselling. The pilot program was evaluated by student surveys.ResultsOur program successfully paired Little Sibs (n = 125) with Big Sibs (n = 75) several months preceding the Step 1 dedicated study period, achieving the intended effect of reducing burnout and fostering a supportive community during a notoriously isolating and emotionally challenging time. Survey results indicated that a majority of Little and Big Sibs found the program helpful.ConclusionsThis student-driven mentorship model is simple to implement, easily generalizable to other medical schools and other board exams, and bears the lasting benefit of combatting the stress and burnout so prevalent in medical education.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40670-022-01571-4.

The US Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 Scoring Change: A Survey of Orthopaedic Surgery Residency Applicants From the 2019 to 2020 Match Cycle.

The USMLE Step 1 examination has been used as an objective measure for comparing residency applicants. Recently, the National Board of Medical Examiners and the Federation of State Medical Boards decided that the USMLE Step 1 examination will transition to a pass/fail result starting no earlier than 2022. The purpose of this study was to investigate the perspective of medical students who applied for orthopaedic surgery residency positions during the 2019 to 2020 interview cycle on the USMLE scoring change, and the potential effect this change may result in for future applicants and the residency selection process. A 15-item anonymous web-based survey was sent to 1,090 orthopaedic surgery residency applicants from four regionally diverse residency programs. The survey elicited attitudes toward the transition of the Step 1 examination to pass/fail and perspectives this change may or may not have on the residency selection process. Responses were received from 356 applicants (32.7%). The majority (61.6%) disagreed with the change to pass/fail scoring, and 68.5% do not believe that the change will decrease stress levels in medical students. For interview invitations, respondents chose Step 2 clinical knowledge, letters of recommendation, and performance on away rotations as the most influential factors in the absence of a Step 1 score. Most of the students surveyed who applied for an orthopaedic surgery residency position during the most recent application cycle disagreed with the National Board of Medical Examiner/Federation of State Medical Board decision to change Step 1 to pass/fail and feel that this change may have disadvantage in certain student groups while either increasing or having no effect on medical student stress. IV.

Rank and Match Outcomes of In-person and Virtual Anesthesiology Residency Interviews.

For the 2019-2020 interview season, the anesthesia residency program at Augusta University offered candidates a choice between in-person (IP) and video conference (VC) interviews to accommodate a greater number of qualified candidates. The same applicant selection criteria were used for both interview types. However, we modified the informal interactions with residents, campus tours, and interview formats for VC interviews. We sought to compare the 2 methods by analyzing the respective costs, benefits, and match results. Of 159 candidates interviewed, we ranked 127 and matched with 12. The IP (n = 135) and VC (n = 24) groups were similar in gender distribution but not by the type of medical school, with more international medical graduates interviewing by VC than IP. There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 interview types for being ranked (81% of IP, 71% of VC) or matched (6% of IP, 17% of VC). US Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 and Step 2 scores and type of medical school did not affect the likelihood of being ranked or matched. Program costs per candidate were higher for the IP group ($431 for IP, $294 for VC). Our single-center study indicates that the interview type did not affect the likelihood of a candidate being ranked by or matched to our program. Further, VC interviews were more cost-effective and time-effective than IP interviews. Our findings suggest that VC interviews are a viable alternative and should be an option for residency interviews.

Examination of Medical College Admission Test Scores and US Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge Scores Among Students With Disabilities

This cohort study examines the association between Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) scores, disability status and category, and performance on US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 and Step 2 CK scores.

Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Program Directors' Perspectives on US Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 Scoring Changes.

In response to increasing dependence on US Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 scores for resident selection, and to improve medical student well-being and education, the Federation of State Medical Boards and the National Board of Medical Examiners announced that no sooner than 2022, Step 1 score reporting would change from numeric to pass/fail. To gauge the impact that this change will have on the residency application process in physical medicine and rehabilitation, an anonymous survey was electronically distributed to program directors of all accredited physical medicine and rehabilitation residency programs in the United States. A response rate of 49% was obtained. In total, 13% of program directors agreed that the scoring change was a good idea. Eighty percent of program directors felt that the change would increase emphasis on Step 2 clinical knowledge in the application process and that it will be more difficult to objectively compare applicants. Among free-text responses to the survey, 70% disapproved, 10% approved, and the remaining 20% were neutral to the change. The results of this survey show that many physical medicine and rehabilitation program directors are concerned about the implications of the Step 1 score reporting change. These data can serve as a helpful guide to program directors and students preparing for a pass/fail Step 1.

Trends in the Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Match: Analysis of NRMP Data from 2007 to 2018.

We provide an updated analysis of data about U.S. Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (PM&R) residency program applicants collected by the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP). Analyze trends within NRMP data for PM&R residency match rates, compare matched to unmatched applicants, and compare PM&R applicants to other medical specialties. Secondary analysis of NRMP data. NRMP data set. Residency program applicants who participated in the NRMP Match, 2007 to 2018. Not applicable. Number of applicants, match rates, difference in characteristics including rank order list (ROL), U.S. Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) scores, publications, Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) status, PhD degree, and experiences in research, volunteer, and work. Number of applicants and residency positions increased from 2007 to 2018. Length of ROL increased and was longer for matched compared to unmatched applicants, with maximum mean difference of 7.4 in 2016 (95% confidence interval [CI] 5.6-9.2). Matched U.S. Allopathic Seniors had higher USMLE scores compared to unmatched, with a mean difference of 12.7 for Step 1 (95% CI 8.3-17.0) and 12.6 (95% CI 8.6-16.6) for Step 2 CK (P< .001). Number of publications and volunteer experiences were higher for matched U.S. Allopathic Seniors (0.64, 95% CI 0.09-1.2 and 1.5, 95% CI 0.65-2.3, respectively). PM&R USMLE Step 1 and 2 CK scores increased at a significantly faster rate than for all other specialties, with estimated rate differences of 0.46 (95% CI 0.21-0.71) and 0.69 (95% CI 0.45-0.93) points per year, respectively. PM&R residency has become more competitive. USMLE Step 1 and 2 CK scores have outpaced the inflation of scores in other specialties. ROL length has increased, suggesting more ranked programs to successfully match. These analyses update our knowledge about PM&R residency applicants and suggest surrogate markers for a successful match.

USMLE step 1 pass/fail: The impact on international medical graduates.

ABSTRACTOn February 12th, 2020, and after a yearlong discussion, the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) announced that the reporting of the U.S. Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) step one exam will transition to pass/fail reporting system and is expected to kick in as early as 2022. The decision was met with various responses, especially by the IMG community. In this paper, we discuss this change and its effect on IMG trainees and their selection process.

Program Directors' Response to a Pass/Fail US Medical Licensing Examination Step 1.

Program Directors' Response to a Pass/Fail US Medical Licensing Examination Step 1.

An Analysis of Trends in National Residency Matching Program Match Data for Orthopedic Surgery.

Due to electronic residency applications, US Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 scores are frequently used by orthopedic surgery program directors to screen applicants. Prospective applicants therefore often use Step 1 scores as a proxy for specialty competitiveness. The goal of this investigation was two-fold: (1) to determine whether trends in Step 1 scores are indicative of trends in competitiveness of orthopedic surgery and (2) to report the characteristics that optimize a US medical student's match success. A retrospective review of published National Resident Matching Program data from 2009 to 2018 was performed for orthopedic surgery residency applicants. Additional data from the Charting Outcomes reports were used for specific analyses of applicant characteristics. From 2009 to 2018, the number of orthopedic surgery residency positions grew at an annual rate of 1.51% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.37% to 1.64%; P<.001), accommodating the 1.26% (95% CI, 0.63% to 1.90%; P=.006) annual increase in the number of applicants who ranked orthopedic surgery as their preferred specialty choice (only choice or first choice). There were no significant changes in the applicant-to-position ratio (95% CI, -0.85% to 0.37%; P=.483) or the match rate for US seniors who ranked orthopedic surgery as their preferred choice (95% CI, -0.23% to 0.87%; P=.313). Increases in mean Step 1 scores of matched orthopedic surgery applicants parallel national Step 1 growth trends (0.49% vs 0.44%, respectively). Although orthopedic surgery is currently a competitive specialty to match into, this has been the case since 2009. Increasing Step 1 scores of matched applicants is not unique to orthopedic surgery and should not be misinterpreted as a proxy for increasing competitiveness of the specialty. [Orthopedics. 2020;43(6):e616-e622.].