ArticlePM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation2026
Factors associated with a successful match in physical medicine and rehabilitation residency based on applicant type from 2014 to 2024.
Article in PM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPhysical medicine and rehabilitation (PM&R) has grown considerably and currently has >100 American College of Graduate Medical Education-accredited residency programs throughout the United States. Comparison of the different applicant types across U.S. allopathic (US-MD), U.S. osteopathic (US-DO), and international medical graduates (IMG) associated with success in matching to this specialty has been limited. We sought to identify the factors that allowed a successful match across different applicant types over a 10-year period.
methodThe National Resident Matching Program Charting Outcomes data were analyzed from 2014 to 2024, with data released biennially, for US-MD, US-DO, and IMG applicants. The factors collected include mean medical licensing examination scores; the number of programs ranked; research, volunteer, and work experiences, as well as research products (including abstracts, publications, or presentations).
resultsStandardized exams greatly impacted match success across all applicant types, with a greater difference in mean medical licensing examination scores for matched compared to unmatched applicants, whereas significantly greater means of extracurriculars additionally contributed to matching for US-DO and IMG applicants. The number of programs ranked was significantly greater in successful matches across all applicant types compared to their unmatched colleagues. When comparing all three applicant pools that successfully matched, the average number of volunteer experiences and programs ranked were the only significantly varying differences, with US-MD and US-DO applicants with greater numbers of programs ranked and volunteer experiences than IMG applicants. DISCUSSION: Though the residency application process has been constantly changing over the years, including the MD/DO residency merger, transition to Pass/Fail board examinations, and limitations to the number of experiences allowed on applications, these data provide a baseline understanding of the factors associated with successful match into the field of PM&R.
conclusionInformation on the factors impacting a successful match may be useful to future applicants and program directors in the field of PM&R.
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.