SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2026
Comparing international and US medical graduates in surgical subspecialties: meta-analysis of residency matching, research output, and postoperative outcomes.
Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPerformance of International Medical Graduates (IMGs) compared to US Medical Graduates (USMGs) remains a key area of interest. This meta-analysis compared performance of IMGs and USMGs regarding surgical residency matching, research productivity, and postoperative outcomes.
methodsSystematic literature search of PubMed and Scopus was conducted up to December 2024. Data from eligible studies were synthesized to assess differences between IMGs and USMGs in matching, research, and postoperative outcomes. Random-effect meta-analyses were conducted, and risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.
resultsA total of 22 studies, published from 2002 to 2024, were included. Neurosurgery (n = 8, 36.4%) was the most assessed subspecialty, followed by General Surgery (n = 6, 27.3%), Orthopedic, and Plastic Surgery (n = 3 each, 13.6%). Residency matching was assessed in 17 studies, while academic productivity was assessed in five, and surgical outcomes in three. IMGs had significantly lower pooled rates of matching into Residency programs (5.4%, 95%CI 3-7.7%; p < 0.001) and Fellowship programs (0.518, 95%CI 0.19-0.83; p = 0.001) but had a significantly higher mean number of publications (WMD 10.9, 95%CI 2.45-19.3; p = 0.011) and H-index (WMD 2.41, 95%CI 1.46-3.36; p < 0.001). IMG faculty had slightly higher odds of postoperative mortality (OR 1.076, 95%CI 1.01-1.14; p = 0.023) but no significant difference in 30-day complications (OR 1.033, 95%CI 0.92-1.16; p = 0.576).
conclusionsIMGs were less likely to match into surgical residencies but outperformed USMGs in research output. Postoperative outcomes appear broadly comparable, although limited observational data suggested a small mortality signal that should be interpreted cautiously given high heterogeneity and potential residual confounding. Further nuanced investigation is warranted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42552484What 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.