ArticleJournal of pain research2025
Analyzing Trends in the Pain Fellowship Match - A Survey of Program Directors.
Article in Journal of pain research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Insurance Noncoverage of Interventional Pain Procedures: Paving the Road Toward the Second Prescription Opioid Crisis.Journal of pain research · 2026Article
- Pain Medicine Needs an Open-Access Data Revolution.Journal of pain research · 2025Article
- Improving the Relationship Between the Neuromodulation Industry and Academia: Commentary and Strategy.Journal of pain research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: Based on recent data, the pain fellowship match is decreasing in competitiveness. The most recent 2023-2024 match cycle had the most unfilled positions and the highest match rate in the last five years. Although there has been some speculation about potential factors contributing to these trends, our study aimed to gather insight from pain fellowship program directors (PDs) nationwide to provide valuable perspectives on recent match trends. Methods: We created an anonymous online survey, with questions regarding potential factors contributing to match trends over the last five years. Our survey was emailed to 115 program directors (PDs), and one follow-up Email was sent three weeks later to maximize responses. Results: Surveys were completed by 25.2% (29/115) of PDs. Over the past five years, 82.8% of PDs (24/29) reported a decrease in applications to their program. For residency specialty of pain fellowship applicants, 100% of PDs (29/29) reported a decline in anesthesiology applicants. Most PDs reported an increase in applicants from PM&R (62.1%, 18/29), Neurology (69.0%, 20/29), and Emergency Medicine (93.1%, 27/29). For potential contributors to these trends, increasing compensation in primary residency specialty was the most significant perceived contributor, with a weighted average of 4.89/5. Decreasing pain reimbursement was the second strongest contributor, with a weighted average of 4.31/5. Conclusion: Increasing compensation in primary residency specialty and declining pain reimbursements were the two most significant perceived contributors to the recent decline in interest in pain fellowship to resident trainees. Pain medicine is now attracting a more diverse applicant pool with a decrease in anesthesiology applicants and an increase in PM&R, Internal Medicine, Neurology, Emergency Medicine, and Psychiatry applicants. Future pain fellows' increased variety of training backgrounds may present an opportunity to critically assess the current pain medicine curriculum to suit the needs of a more diverse cohort.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.