An analysis of osteopathic medical students applying to surgical residencies following transition to a single graduate medical education accreditation system.

CONTEXT: Upon requests from osteopathic medical schools, the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) Charting Outcomes were redesigned to include osteopathic medical school seniors beginning in 2018 and one joint graduate medical education (GME) accreditation system, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), formed in 2020. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study is to analyze the match outcomes and characteristics of osteopathic applicants applying to surgical specialties following the ACGME transition. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of osteopathic senior match outcomes in surgical specialties from the NRMP Main Residency Match data from 2020 to 2022 and the NRMP Charting Outcomes data from 2020 to 2022 was performed. RESULTS: For surgical specialties, results show matching increased as United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 2 CK (clinical knowledge) and Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination (COMLEX) Level 2 CE (cognitive evaluation) scores increased along with the number of contiguous rankings (p<0.001). The greatest indication for matching looking at scores alone were those who scored greater than 230 on Step 2 CK compared to below (p<0.001) and above 650 on Level 2 CE (p<0.001). However, those who scored 240 (p=0.025) on Step 2 CK were just as likely to match as those who scored 250 (p=0.022) when compared to those who scored below those scores. Increasing research involvement had little to no significance with the likelihood of matching across most surgical subspecialties. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that there are unique thresholds for Step 2 CK scores, Level 2 CE scores, and the number of contiguous ranks for each surgical specialty that, when reached, are significantly associated with match success. Although certain board score delineations are linked with higher match success rates, the rates level off after this point for most surgical specialties and do not significantly increase further with higher scores. In addition, thresholds within contiguous ranks for increasing match likelihood exist and vary across surgical specialties. Overall, this study highlights that the quantitative metrics utilized to assess applicants lack the correlation reported historically, and the data presently available need to be more substantiated.

Do Electrical Stimulation Devices Reduce Pain and Improve Function?-A Comparative Review.

BACKGROUND: Multiple forms of electrical stimulation (ES) potentially offer widely varying clinical benefits. Diminished function commonly associated with acute and chronic pain lessens productivity and increases medical costs. This review aims to compare the relative effects of various forms of ES on functional and pain outcomes. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search focused on studies of commonly marketed forms of ES used for treatment of pain and improvement of function. Peer-reviewed manuscripts were categorized as "Important" (systematic review or meta-analysis, randomized controlled trial, observational cohort study) and "Minor" (retrospective case series, case report, opinion review) for each identified form of ES. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Varying forms of ES have markedly different technical parameters, applications, and indications, based on clinically meaningful impact on pain perception, function improvement, and medication reduction. Despite being around for decades, there is limited quality evidence for most forms of ES, although there are several notable exceptions for treatment of specific indications. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) has well-demonstrated beneficial effects for rehabilitation of selective spinal cord injured (SCI), post-stroke, and debilitated inpatients. Functional electrical stimulation (FES) has similarly shown effectiveness in rehabilitation of some stroke, SCI, and foot drop outpatients. H-Wave® device stimulation (HWDS) has moderate supportive evidence for treatment of acute and refractory chronic pain, consistently demonstrating improvements in function and pain measures across diverse populations. Interestingly, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), the most widely used form of ES, demonstrated insignificant or very low levels of pain and functional improvement. CONCLUSION: Ten of 13 reviewed forms of ES have only limited quality evidence for clinically significant reduction of pain or improvement of function across different patient populations. NMES and FES have reasonably demonstrated effectiveness, albeit for specific clinical rehabilitation indications. HWDS was associated with the most clinically significant outcomes, in terms of functional improvement combined with reduction of pain and medication use. More rigorous long-term clinical trials are needed to further validate appropriate use and specific indications for most forms of ES. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.