Best specialties that don't require research?

[Konigstiger]

With boards going P/F, I've seen a lot of people on here saying that research quantity is going to have an increased importance when it comes to residency applications from now on. What I'm wondering is if there are any specialties out there that don't place as much of an emphasis on research? I'm a current second year with no research (not for a lack of trying; all my emails to potential PIs were ignored), and I don't see how I'd find any time to do research in third year before I have to submit my residency applications. Not to mention I just dislike doing research in general.

So assuming I get a decent STEP 2 score, are there any specialties other than primary care that I would have a good shot at? Or does everything require some sort of research now?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[sloop]

Psychiatry is a good option if you like the work.

 

[Browns99]

Anesthesia and radiology

Yup, neither are competitive, so no research needed. Whether that changes down the road is anyones guess. However, IR is competitive, so not sure what the average matched applicant has in terms of pubs/research.

 

[DrStephenStrange]

Without research you'll still be fine with applying to IM, FM, Pediatrics, EM, Pathology, Neurology, Psychiatry, Radiology, and Anesthesiology.

 

[Proudfather94]

Without research you'll still be fine with applying to IM, FM, Pediatrics, EM, Pathology, Neurology, Psychiatry, Radiology, and Anesthesiology.

Some of those are becoming more competitive. If someone is starting school soon or is an M1 would you recommend getting some research for Ans, rads, or psych?

 

[sloop]

Some of those are becoming more competitive. If someone is starting school soon or is an M1 would you recommend getting some research for Ans, rads, or psych?

Despite psych becoming more competitive, I don’t think the importance of applicants having done research has changed. I don’t think research will ever be particularly important in psych unless it somehow becomes so competitive that there are too many applicants with awesome grades and step scores and places need another metric by which to distinguish applicants. We are nowhere near that, currently.

There may be a handful of programs where the culture is seriously slanted towards research where it might be important, but in general people can match at even top programs without any significant research experience.

Compared to some other specialties, psych does not have a heavy general emphasis on academics. Even at the top places, many or even most of the graduates don’t wind up going into academics, and programs know this. Lots of graduating psychiatrists just go off and enter private practice and never again even associate themselves with a hospital. There may be a few academic psychiatrists who live in a bubble, but most psychiatrists respect the fact that many residents have no interest in academics.

 

[Lawpy]

As someone who actually likes research, I very much despise this absurd practice of using research for the sake of competitiveness, because that only encourages even more garbage to be pumped out

OP i think specialties outside of derm, surgery/surgical subs, IR and of course top programs don’t need research

 

[Thesimplelifeofamyloid]

Yup, neither are competitive, so no research needed. Whether that changes down the road is anyones guess. However, IR is competitive, so not sure what the average matched applicant has in terms of pubs/research.

Radiology is getting so much more competitive than people let on, especially at good academic centers

 

[throwaway123342]

Yup, neither are competitive, so no research needed. Whether that changes down the road is anyones guess. However, IR is competitive, so not sure what the average matched applicant has in terms of pubs/research.

Rads is pretty competitive. Need a high step score to land an academic residency. The previously high match rates mostly result from self selection. Not to mention applicants are up 25% this year.

 

[djiboutiman]

Don’t worry about research at this point. Right now, prioritize passing Step 1, doing well and being likable on your rotations, and aiming high for Step 2. If you decide at the end of M3 that you want to do something competitive where research is a must (derm, ophthalmology, or surgical specialty), then take a research year between M3 and M4. Plan on doing away rotations early 4th year and you should be okay. You can always ask faculty about writing up a case report when you’re on rotations and getting a publication that way too.

Not that this is common, but a girl at my DO school matched into a competitive surgical specialty this year at a top notch program with only 1 publication in an unrelated specialty, but she did an away rotation at that program. It goes to show that you can stand out with more than just having a lot of research.

 

[4thtimeretaker]

Don’t worry about research at this point. Right now, prioritize passing Step 1, doing well and being likable on your rotations, and aiming high for Step 2. If you decide at the end of M3 that you want to do something competitive where research is a must (derm, ophthalmology, or surgical specialty), then take a research year between M3 and M4. Plan on doing away rotations early 4th year and you should be okay. You can always ask faculty about writing up a case report when your on rotations and getting a publication that way too.

Not that this is common, but a girl at my DO school matched into a competitive surgical specialty this year at a top notch program with only 1 publication in an unrelated specialty, but she did an away rotation at that program. It goes to show that you can stand out with more than just having a lot of research.

Which specialty did she match, if you don't mind saying? I'm assuming she has excellent board scores/grades but it's crazy to see how much of an influence auditions can have.

 

[voxveritatisetlucis]

DR and anesthesiology seem to be getting more competitive as of late.

 

[mrbreakfast]

I'm assuming she has excellent board scores/grades but it's crazy to see how much of an influence auditions can have.

I know people who matched ortho and derm with lowish step 1 scores (high 220s) and one of my best friends in med school matched to a pretty competitive GS program with a step 1 score of like 215. They all matched at a program they did an away at and absolutely killed it. Very strong away rotation performances, as well as "special" letters (e.g. "This person is one of the best medical students I've worked with in my entire career" from a prestigious letter-writer) can have a huge impact.

From a recruiting standpoint, many people look amazing on paper/sitting in an interview in their suits, but a high step score and many publications don't necessarily mean they'll be a great clinician. The opposite is also true; a 215 on step 1 means that applicant might struggle to pass their ABSITE, but the audition showed they're a hard worker on the floors, skilled in the OR, and have a great personality/are a great fit despite that, for example.

 

[djiboutiman]

Which specialty did she match, if you don't mind saying? I'm assuming she has excellent board scores/grades but it's crazy to see how much of an influence auditions can have.

Ortho, program is in Doximity’s top 10.

 

[NegativeMargin]

When I look at the charts, there are obvious trends with 4-8 residencies showing a clear desire for research over others.. that said I still don't look at it and think "I don't need research if I'm going DR." It may have 1/3 the number of the 4 highest, but it still does have twice as many as others that people here have placed in the same list as DR that they've labeled "not needing research".

I'm not saying all of this to state facts about what you need for which specialty, but as I set my goals for the next 4 years, I'm certainly going to try and aim for 2 research projects with a publication, abstract, and poster for each. And that won't even put me in the 50th percentile for DR. If I took everything said in this thread at face value, my take away would be that the vast majority of people do more than they need to for their match.. or that folks are just trying to be supportive here, which seems far more likely.. not that there's anything wrong with that.

edit: of the 555 MD seniors who matched DR, only 9 of them had zero research projects. I don't know if that stands out more, or the fact that it's the only group on that chart with a 100% match rate.

 

[99cutter]

As someone who actually likes research, I very much despise this absurd practice of using research for the sake of competitiveness, because that only encourages even more garbage to be pumped out

OP i think specialties outside of derm, surgery/surgical subs, IR and of course top programs don’t need research

It's the reality of the situation, and imo a symptom of a larger issue in medical education.

That being said, some of the stuff being pumped out is hilarious.

 

[Phloston]

With boards going P/F, I've seen a lot of people on here saying that research quantity is going to have an increased importance when it comes to residency applications from now on. What I'm wondering is if there are any specialties out there that don't place as much of an emphasis on research? I'm a current second year with no research (not for a lack of trying; all my emails to potential PIs were ignored), and I don't see how I'd find any time to do research in third year before I have to submit my residency applications. Not to mention I just dislike doing research in general.

So assuming I get a decent STEP 2 score, are there any specialties other than primary care that I would have a good shot at? Or does everything require some sort of research now?

What are you actually interested in is the question. By "best" do you mean: "Which specialties will make me cash without me needing to do research to get in?" By all means FM and IM are great areas that don't require research.

 

[ChordaEpiphany]

Despite psych becoming more competitive, I don’t think the importance of applicants having done research has changed. I don’t think research will ever be particularly important in psych unless it somehow becomes so competitive that there are too many applicants with awesome grades and step scores and places need another metric by which to distinguish applicants. We are nowhere near that, currently.

There may be a handful of programs where the culture is seriously slanted towards research where it might be important, but in general people can match at even top programs without any significant research experience.

Compared to some other specialties, psych does not have a heavy general emphasis on academics. Even at the top places, many or even most of the graduates don’t wind up going into academics, and programs know this. Lots of graduating psychiatrists just go off and enter private practice and never again even associate themselves with a hospital. There may be a few academic psychiatrists who live in a bubble, but most psychiatrists respect the fact that many residents have no interest in academics.

I'm an MD/PhD student, and pretty much the only people who go into psych are those who no longer want anything to do with research (which is actually a fairly substantial number of MD/PhDs... but that's another discussion). I think psych research has generally fallen under the domain of psychology PhDs. The fact that their clinical training borrows so heavily from a PhD-style doctorate likely explains this.

I also think that psychiatry's main focus (drugs) is a slow moving animal. It's heating up, but there's just not that much to say about it compared to something like heme/onc. Heme/onc is moving so quickly that even specialist researchers miss big breakthroughs in their own fields sometimes. I've seen this 3 times at research talks this year alone.

 

[mistafab]

I'm an MD/PhD student, and pretty much the only people who go into psych are those who no longer want anything to do with research (which is actually a fairly substantial number of MD/PhDs... but that's another discussion). I think psych research has generally fallen under the domain of psychology PhDs. The fact that their clinical training borrows so heavily from a PhD-style doctorate likely explains this.

I also think that psychiatry's main focus (drugs) is a slow moving animal. It's heating up, but there's just not that much to say about it compared to something like heme/onc. Heme/onc is moving so quickly that even specialist researchers miss big breakthroughs in their own fields sometimes. I've seen this 3 times at research talks this year alone.

I don't know where you are getting this but it is completely wrong. There are enormous research funds funneled into neuroscience every year, doled out by NIMH. There are hundreds of studies published on brain science and novel treatments each month. There is a broad development of novel treatments in the past 5 years and a gush of new research coming out relating to this as well. I have no idea how you've come to your conclusions. It is fine to opine but to state it as fact is just misleading. Yes psych as a field overall can get matched without research, but no one is going to top academic psychiatric centers for residency without research period. Psychiatric research is getting billions of dollars due to the push for new brain science in the era of ketamine, brexanolone, and other psychoplastogens. On top of that, the past 20 years of neuroscience has created huge centers just studying brain networks, most of the important publications in the past decades are MDs in collaboration with other translational scientists, just like any field of medicine. Additionally, psychiatrists in research are typically involved in interdisciplinary research groups (more so than other specialties), often working alongside radiologists, neurologists, neuropsychologists etc to address these issues. MDs and MD/PHDs are specifically needed to integrate the science with medicine and physiology, especially important in psychiatry - this is doubly true in the era of big data, BWAS/GWAS, and the push for mental health.

 

[voxveritatisetlucis]

I don't know where you are getting this but it is completely wrong. There are enormous research funds funneled into neuroscience every year, doled out by NIMH. There are hundreds of studies published on brain science and novel treatments each month. There is a broad development of novel treatments in the past 5 years and a gush of new research coming out relating to this as well. I have no idea how you've come to your conclusions. It is fine to opine but to state it as fact is just misleading. Yes psych as a field overall can get matched without research, but no one is going to top academic psychiatric centers for residency without research period. Psychiatric research is getting billions of dollars due to the push for new brain science in the era of ketamine, brexanolone, and other psychoplastogens. On top of that, the past 20 years of neuroscience has created huge centers just studying brain networks, most of the important publications in the past decades are MDs in collaboration with other translational scientists, just like any field of medicine. Additionally, psychiatrists in research are typically involved in interdisciplinary research groups (more so than other specialties), often working alongside radiologists, neurologists, neuropsychologists etc to address these issues. MDs and MD/PHDs are specifically needed to integrate the science with medicine and physiology, especially important in psychiatry - this is doubly true in the era of big data, BWAS/GWAS, and the push for mental health.

Even at my undergrad school, I would say that as many or more grants went to neuroscientists than oncologists

 

[sloop]

Yes psych as a field overall can get matched without research, but no one is going to top academic psychiatric centers for residency without research period.

I agree with a lot of the rest of your post, but this is not true. I went to an internationally recognized, “top academic center” for psych residency. Between a quarter and a third of my residency class had PhDs. When I applied, I did not have any publications from medical school. I was a research assistant on a psychiatry trial for a summer, but I did not publish (which is a long story that boiled down to having a kind of ****ty PI who just wanted some free labor but wasn’t really invested in my goals despite telling me that he was). My first psych/medical publication was while I was in residency. Not only did I match at a top academic center, but I also had interviews at many other top academic centers. I also had step scores that, at the time, would have been more than sufficient for any specialty in medicine let alone psych. I think that probably helped my application.

Anyway, long story short is that I don’t think it’s accurate to say that you won’t match to top academic centers in psychiatry without research. You just have to have something else that is impressive about your application, whether that’s grades, step scores, or something else that’s unique.

 

[Redpancreas]

We can debate the motivations of psychiatry aspirants all day, but the NRMP data shows that only EM applicants have less scholarly activity when it comes to specialties (not general residencies)...granted the data I am using is uses semi-self-reported including abstracts/posters so I'm making the assumption this correlates with overall research output which is not always true. That may change if the field continues to heat up even more than it is given the void EM is creating.

 

[voxveritatisetlucis]

We can debate the motivations of psychiatry aspirants all day, but the NRMP data shows that only EM applicants have less scholarly activity when it comes to specialties (not general residencies)...granted the data I am using is uses semi-self-reported including abstracts/posters so I'm making the assumption correlates with overall research output which is not always true. That may change if the field continues to heat up even more than it is given the void EM is creating.

Is this the latest data (most recent match)

 

[ChordaEpiphany]

I don't know where you are getting this but it is completely wrong. There are enormous research funds funneled into neuroscience every year, doled out by NIMH. There are hundreds of studies published on brain science and novel treatments each month. There is a broad development of novel treatments in the past 5 years and a gush of new research coming out relating to this as well. I have no idea how you've come to your conclusions. It is fine to opine but to state it as fact is just misleading. Yes psych as a field overall can get matched without research, but no one is going to top academic psychiatric centers for residency without research period. Psychiatric research is getting billions of dollars due to the push for new brain science in the era of ketamine, brexanolone, and other psychoplastogens. On top of that, the past 20 years of neuroscience has created huge centers just studying brain networks, most of the important publications in the past decades are MDs in collaboration with other translational scientists, just like any field of medicine. Additionally, psychiatrists in research are typically involved in interdisciplinary research groups (more so than other specialties), often working alongside radiologists, neurologists, neuropsychologists etc to address these issues. MDs and MD/PHDs are specifically needed to integrate the science with medicine and physiology, especially important in psychiatry - this is doubly true in the era of big data, BWAS/GWAS, and the push for mental health.

Psychiatry =/= neuroscience. Just because the brain is involved doesn't mean it's psychiatry, and just because psychiatrists are listed authors on a study doesn't mean they are heavily involved. Neuroscience research rivals oncology in size and scope. Its intersection with mental health and the overall domain of a clinical psychiatrist is much smaller. There is a lot of collaboration, of course, but that doesn't mean psychiatry is necessarily leading the charge. Almost everything you listed is primarily neuroscience. The psychiatrists are secondary collaborators.

I mean... obviously top academic centers require research. Obviously there is lots of research going on, more research than any one individual could ever keep up with, but this is true of all academic fields. Psych as a medical specialty is less popular among MD/PhDs who want to continue primarily in a research career, and psych is definitely a specialty where having very little research is not necessarily looked down upon. I stand by my statement that research in psych is quite slow compared to something like heme/onc.

NCI budget: $6.9 billion
NIMH budget: $1.6 billion

I'm not bagging on psych or anyone who does research in psych. I just think research in psych, currently, is very practical and clinical. In general, the culture around clinical research is more "casual" than basic research, meaning a lot more people are doing it part-time. The result is that the specialty as a whole is a bit heavier on clinical emphasis compared to specialties like heme/onc, pathology, and neuro/neurosurgery, etc... The sorts of paradigm shifts that result in extremely drastic changes to the specialty will likely come from a few decades of breakthroughs in neuroscience which allow us to really intricately model mental health based on brain chemistry. Once that happens the field will explode. I think we're a few decades away.

 

[mistafab]

Psychiatry =/= neuroscience. Just because the brain is involved doesn't mean it's psychiatry, and just because psychiatrists are listed authors on a study doesn't mean they are heavily involved. Neuroscience research rivals oncology in size and scope. Its intersection with mental health and the overall domain of a clinical psychiatrist is much smaller. There is a lot of collaboration, of course, but that doesn't mean psychiatry is necessarily leading the charge. Almost everything you listed is primarily neuroscience. The psychiatrists are secondary collaborators.

I mean... obviously top academic centers require research. Obviously there is lots of research going on, more research than any one individual could ever keep up with, but this is true of all academic fields. Psych as a medical specialty is less popular among MD/PhDs who want to continue primarily in a research career, and psych is definitely a specialty where having very little research is not necessarily looked down upon. I stand by my statement that research in psych is quite slow compared to something like heme/onc.

NCI budget: $6.9 billion
NIMH budget: $1.6 billion

I'm not bagging on psych or anyone who does research in psych. I just think research in psych, currently, is very practical and clinical. In general, the culture around clinical research is more "casual" than basic research, meaning a lot more people are doing it part-time. The result is that the specialty as a whole is a bit heavier on clinical emphasis compared to specialties like heme/onc, pathology, and neuro/neurosurgery, etc... The sorts of paradigm shifts that result in extremely drastic changes to the specialty will likely come from a few decades of breakthroughs in neuroscience which allow us to really intricately model mental health based on brain chemistry. Once that happens the field will explode. I think we're a few decades away.

Again, just completely wrong. Psychiatrists are brain doctors. Of course neuroscience money involves psychiatric research. The same as pathology research in the brain involving alzheimers has to do with neurology or psychiatry. Or physiology research involving the heart is the basis of cardiology. You’re out of your element here and wrong on all fronts. No, psych research isnt casual where you roll into wearing your swim trunks while you crunch the numbers while catching some waves. Neuroscience is big money. Psychiatry is big on research. There is tons of money poured into basic science in neuroscience and yes this involves psychiatry.

You’re clueless about this. Go back to your med school’s lab, waste your hours pipetting and telling everyone what a big time researcher you have to be as long as you’re not a psychiatrist. Only cancer is real research, Yeah buddy, not in a million years. Anyone with a brain here knows you are wrong.

 

[ChordaEpiphany]

Again, just completely wrong. Psychiatrists are brain doctors. Of course neuroscience money involves psychiatric research. The same as pathology research in the brain involving alzheimers has to do with neurology or psychiatry. Or physiology research involving the heart is the basis of cardiology. You’re out of your element here and wrong on all fronts. No, psych research isnt casual where you roll into wearing your swim trunks while you crunch the numbers while catching some waves. Neuroscience is big money. Psychiatry is big on research. There is tons of money poured into basic science in neuroscience and yes this involves psychiatry.

You’re clueless about this. Go back to your med school’s lab, waste your hours pipetting and telling everyone what a big time researcher you have to be as long as you’re not a psychiatrist. Only cancer is real research, Yeah buddy, not in a million years. Anyone with a brain here knows you are wrong.

Well, because you're twisting my words and insist on being combative, I'm done responding after this.

Neuroscience research and psychiatry research exist like a venn diagram. Yes, there is overlap, but there is a lot of separate ground there. Sounds like you really don't understand the breadth of neuroscience research (or psych research, for that matter, since there is tons of psychiatry research that would read like a foreign language to a neuroscientist). Again, brain =/= psych. What an oversimplified take. That's like saying all trauma research is ortho research because sometimes it involves bones. Is there overlap? Sure, but each specialty has it's own domains.

I published a neuroscience article literally today. If I applied for psych residency with this article, not a single person would say, "Oh wow, great, you've got specialty-relevant research." Every specialty is big on research. Medicine is big on research. There is tons of money poured into every specialty, but we're talking about relative amounts here. Psych is average on research and it's a specialty you can match, even quite highly, without research. This is truer in psych than it is in specialties known for demanding research like neurosurgery, neuro, ID, and heme/onc.

As for the "casualness" of research, I may have conveyed that poorly. You will find that even the most hardcore psych researchers typically have a substantial clinical practice. The most hardcore oncologists, immunologists, neurologists, etc... tend to separate nearly entirely from their clinical practice and instead run a lab and focus 90% on research with maybe a few clinic days per month. Top tier academic psych residencies place a higher value on the clinical practice, in my experience, than something like a neuro residency or an oncology fellowship (or PSTP residency), which tend to focus on your potential as a researcher. It's a difference in priorities and culture. Neither is better or worse than the other. And for the record, I never once implied that only cancer research is real research. Cancer research just has a lot more money flowing to it than psych right now, and if you ask me that's actually a poor reflection on their relative importance.

Funny enough I don't work in "my med school's lab" (if that were even a thing). A lot of weird assumptions going on here, but I hope you see the point I'm making. Neuroscience =/= psych, and psych has a very different culture around research compared to some other specialties.

 

[sloop]

Neuroscience research and psychiatry research exist like a venn diagram. Yes, there is overlap, but there is a lot of separate ground there.

This has not been my experience. Neuroscience and psychiatry are obviously different fields if you’re talking about clinical psychiatry research, but they’re not really different when you’re talking about basic science research in psychiatry. As I mentioned above, a good portion of my residency class had PhDs. All of them were neuroscience PhDs. They currently have grants to do all sorts of neuroscience research that has relevance to psychiatry. These are people pipetting in labs and working with cells and such. I’m not exactly sure what type of psychiatry-relevant basic science research you’re thinking of that isn’t also legitimately considered neuroscience research.

 

[ChordaEpiphany]

This has not been my experience. Neuroscience and psychiatry are obviously different fields if you’re talking about clinical psychiatry research, but they’re not really different when you’re talking about basic science research in psychiatry. As I mentioned above, a good portion of my residency class had PhDs. All of them were neuroscience PhDs. They currently have grants to do all sorts of neuroscience research that has relevance to psychiatry. These are people pipetting in labs and working with cells and such. I’m not exactly sure what type of psychiatry-relevant basic science research you’re thinking of that isn’t also legitimately considered neuroscience research.

I never said there was a lot of psych basic science research that isn't legitimate neuroscience research. I said there is tons of neuroscience research that isn't psychiatry research, and another user was lumping this all in as psych research basically "because brain." I work in a very neuro-heavy department, and the majority of the research I see is focused on imaging, voltage sensing, electrophysiology, TBI, CTE, Alzheimer's/stroke/MS/Parkinson's therapeutics, etc... I wouldn't consider this psych research any more than I would consider research on basic synthetic biology (e.g., cell-free sensing, genetic circuits, synthetic TFs) to be cancer research. Maybe there's application in the future, but ultimately it's a different thing.

I also never said there isn't substantial lab research in psychiatry or that a lot of psych research isn't also neuroscience research. Like I said, it's a venn diagram. Obviously a neuroscience PhD who specialized in psych will work within that overlap. The lab vs. clinical dichotomy is not a good way to cleanly separate neuro from psych, as each has substantial research in both. Overall, compared to something like neuro or heme/onc, psych tends more clinical, and psych researchers also keep up a higher percentage effort in clinical practice compared to research.

I just don't like the idea that someone would lump all "brain research" as psych and use that as evidence that psych is a booming research field. If you want to make that argument, there is much better and more accurate evidence to cite. Psych is booming, but I think that overall it emphasizes research less than some other fields (and more than others, like surgery).

The original question was about which specialties don't require lots of research. Psych is a clear contender. You can match a great psych residency without lots of pubs. On the other hand, you probably can't match a great psych residency if you look like you'll have suboptimal skills interacting with patients. I think the inverse is true for many specialties.

 

[Pharmado]

You are past the point of padding your application with outside work. Be a good student, get good grades and test scores. Find what you will enjoy doing the most because your career will be long. Don’t think I’m terms of what is a “good” field to others. You can be miserable in derm or ortho if the fit isn’t right. Maybe FM or Peds are where you’ll be happiest. Focus on being the best Med student you can and finding your passion, then chase it.

 

[DocDad1]

Yup, neither are competitive, so no research needed. Whether that changes down the road is anyones guess. However, IR is competitive, so not sure what the average matched applicant has in terms of pubs/research.

Anesthesia is not competitive? Not true. This past year especially, one of the top five move competitive specialties. More than 33% of US Med school candidates did not match.

 

[DocDad1]

Yup, neither are competitive, so no research needed. Whether that changes down the road is anyones guess. However, IR is competitive, so not sure what the average matched applicant has in terms of pubs/research.

Where are you getting your data that neither radiology and anesthesia are not competitive. Patently wrong. Look at the NRMP data.

 

[mrbreakfast]

Anesthesia is not competitive? Not true. This past year especially, one of the top five move competitive specialties. More than 33% of US Med school candidates did not match.

Per 2022 NMRP data, 1,286 of 1,489 US MD applicants matched (including advanced positions, which is in a different table), for an overall match rate of 86.4%. That's lower than psych (87.2%) but higher than PM&R (84.9%), OBGYN (85.4%), and - aptly demonstrating the pitfalls of using this data in isolation - FM (86.1%).

If you only look at categorical positions, then anesthesia's match rate is just 70%. But that's better than neuro's categorical match (66.3%), let alone PM&R's (32.8%). Though, that isn't how the match works - 18% of anesthesia's matches were to advanced programs.

For comparison, general surgery, which had about as many US MD applicants as anesthesia, had a match rate of 72%; ortho's was 64.9%.

Also, this ignores US MD reapplicants, who filled 4% of anesthesia's total spots in 2022, which is one of the highest percentages across specialties.

 

[voxveritatisetlucis]

Per 2022 NMRP data, 1,286 of 1,489 US MD applicants matched (including advanced positions, which is in a different table), for an overall match rate of 86.4%. That's lower than psych (87.2%) but higher than PM&R (84.9%), OBGYN (85.4%), and - aptly demonstrating the pitfalls of using this data in isolation - FM (86.1%).

If you only look at categorical positions, then anesthesia's match rate is just 70%. But that's better than neuro's categorical match (66.3%), let alone PM&R's (32.8%). Though, that isn't how the match works - 18% of anesthesia's matches were to advanced programs.

For comparison, general surgery, which had about as many US MD applicants as anesthesia, had a match rate of 72%; ortho's was 64.9%.

Also, this ignores US MD reapplicants, who filled 4% of anesthesia's total spots in 2022, which is one of the highest percentages across specialties.

Why is neuro so low?

Is it just because most common is prelim+neuro rather than categorical?

 

[mrbreakfast]

Why is neuro so low?

Is it just because most common is prelim+neuro rather than categorical?

The most common is categorical, but 30% of matches were to advanced positions. There are far fewer advanced positions, but in neuro, advanced residencies are generally more competitive. No one applies advanced only. Also, neurology is a weird specialty because it has so many IMGs (~30%, second only to IM) and has many programs that are effectively IMG-only (US candidates essentially don't even apply).

PM&R is so low because the majority of applicants matched to advanced positions, as there are about twice as many advanced spots as categorical.

 

[Browns99]

Where are you getting your data that neither radiology and anesthesia are not competitive. Patently wrong. Look at the NRMP data.

If you say so.....No one said they were in the same class as FM, but when considering the competitive fields( Derm, neurosurgery, Plastics, ENT, ortho, etc.) anesthesia and DR are not in that category, hence, why research is not likely needed....That is the subject of this post, is it not?

No one was trying to insult you or anyone going into rads, anesthesia, just making a valid assessment IMHO regarding research needs to match.

 

[throwaway123342]

If you say so.....No one said they were in the same class as FM, but when considering the competitive fields( Derm, neurosurgery, Plastics, ENT, ortho, etc.) anesthesia and DR are not in that category, hence, why research is not likely needed....That is the subject of this post, is it not?

No one was trying to insult you or anyone going into rads, anesthesia, just making a valid assessment IMHO regarding research needs to match.

I mean you are just patently wrong. I dont know what to tell you. Rads is probably lower in competitiveness than those fields you listed, but you poor easoning to reach that conclusion.

Also research is definitely sought after in radiology. I was asked about it nearly every interview day. If you want to apply without research, then you should feel comfortable vying for just the community rads spots (which go quick).

Makes me question what your level of experience is with the ERAS season...

 

[Browns99]

I mean you are just patently wrong. I dont know what to tell you. Rads is probably lower in competitiveness than those fields you listed, but you poor easoning to reach that conclusion.

Also research is definitely sought after in radiology. I was asked about it nearly every interview day. If you want to apply without research, then you should feel comfortable vying for just the community rads spots (which go quick).

Makes me question what your level of experience is with the ERAS season...

"Rads is probably lower in competitiveness than those fields you listed,"...Probably, c'mon now. Even you as a DR, can't say that with a straight face.

Stop getting insulted because you feel that I knocked rads.....You can have an opinion, but to say that you question my level of experience with ERAS is just childish.

Each applicant can and should do whatever positions them best to match, whether it is doing research for rads or not. All I said was that I felt that research was not necessary for rads/anestheshia, if you feel it is, great, I can have my opinion and you have yours. I would love to hear from other applicants though, if research was truly asked of them at every interview as you claim in your post.

BTW, I doubt that stellar apps without research would have to apply to "community rads spots." And, what do you consider research, a presentation, one pub., a dedicated year, pushing out papers just for numbers?

Either way, applicants viewing these posts should always consult with their mentor, school advisors, etc. when deciding what is best for them. The opinions here are just that, opinions, including mine.

Here are some statistics from 2020 showing what residencies place a higher emphasis on research:
pubs/presentations/abstracts
Neurosurgery 23.4
Integrated plastics 19.1
Ortho 14.3
Oto 13.7

*DR 6.4

Point is, research in rads is probably not at the top of PDs list, except for your academic and top 10-15 "ranked" programs.

One caveat of course is that, if you have a weak application, then you may want to ask your mentors if research will help.

You run along now and have a great day.

 

[voxveritatisetlucis]

For radiology and anesthesiology, the amount of research needed probably depends on both application competitiveness and school tier. I would imagine that somebody with a 260+/AOA/honors in most clerkships needs a ton of research. Likewise somebody from Harvard, JHU, UCSF probably doesn’t need a ton of research. In fact I know somebody from HMS who matched top tier anesthesiology and she only has 1 publication.

However, if somebody has low step scores/mediocre grades or comes from a low tier school, he or she will probably benefit from having anesthesia or rads research.

 

[Ho0v-man]

Research is not that important in radiology, even at the vast majority of academic programs. I’ve even been told as much from people involved in resident selection at a couple “top” academic programs FWIW.

It’s cool if you have it of course. But scores and LORs carry much more weight. No one knows if that will hold true in the future with step 1 p/f and what seems to be increased interest in the field.

 

[RangerBob]

PM&R (my specialty) is pretty light on research, though it’ll help for top specialties.

As others pointed out, psych has a lower focus on research compared to most specialties. My friend was an MD-PhD (originally she wanted to go into ID but changed as an MS4 to psych). She got interviews at every program she applied to. This was about 8 years ago, and the specialty has gotten more competitive since then.

Rads has so many unfilled spots per year you can match without research, but I don’t know if those programs are worth matching into/provide a good springboard for a career. Rads forum could probably give better input.

I’m not sure I met any med students interested in EM who had any kind of research aside from public health type stuff and occasionally clinical research.

Plenty of IM/FM/Peds programs out there for people with minimal research experience.

Try to assist on a paper or poster presentation if possible, so you have something to put down. All I had was poster presentation and the summer research project that lead to it. No one at the PM&R programs I interviewed at asked me about it. Except Mayo. I think they were wondering “what is this guy going here? Who let him in the door.?” My thought was they were totally right, but I wanted to see Mayo!

 

[90sportsfan]

Without research you'll still be fine with applying to IM, FM, Pediatrics, EM, Pathology, Neurology, Psychiatry, Radiology, and Anesthesiology.

I would say for Neurology, the exception would be for the top tier programs. They tend to be very heavily research-oriented, so most of the competitive applicants have some research. Neurology is a hot field for NIH funding, so the top programs place an emphasis on research. Even for mid-tier programs, while it’s not necessary, it definitely looks good to have some research.

 

[Captain_Falcon]

I would say for Neurology, the exception would be for the top tier programs. They tend to be very heavily research-oriented, so most of the competitive applicants have some research. Neurology is a hot field for NIH funding, so the top programs place an emphasis on research. Even for mid-tier programs, while it’s not necessary, it definitely looks good to have some research.

Which programs in particular? I'm applying neuro in the fall and have 1 neuro-related case report but nothing else research wise

 

[90sportsfan]

Well, because you're twisting my words and insist on being combative, I'm done responding after this.

Neuroscience research and psychiatry research exist like a venn diagram. Yes, there is overlap, but there is a lot of separate ground there. Sounds like you really don't understand the breadth of neuroscience research (or psych research, for that matter, since there is tons of psychiatry research that would read like a foreign language to a neuroscientist). Again, brain =/= psych. What an oversimplified take. That's like saying all trauma research is ortho research because sometimes it involves bones. Is there overlap? Sure, but each specialty has it's own domains.

I published a neuroscience article literally today. If I applied for psych residency with this article, not a single person would say, "Oh wow, great, you've got specialty-relevant research." Every specialty is big on research. Medicine is big on research. There is tons of money poured into every specialty, but we're talking about relative amounts here. Psych is average on research and it's a specialty you can match, even quite highly, without research. This is truer in psych than it is in specialties known for demanding research like neurosurgery, neuro, ID, and heme/onc.

As for the "casualness" of research, I may have conveyed that poorly. You will find that even the most hardcore psych researchers typically have a substantial clinical practice. The most hardcore oncologists, immunologists, neurologists, etc... tend to separate nearly entirely from their clinical practice and instead run a lab and focus 90% on research with maybe a few clinic days per month. Top tier academic psych residencies place a higher value on the clinical practice, in my experience, than something like a neuro residency or an oncology fellowship (or PSTP residency), which tend to focus on your potential as a researcher. It's a difference in priorities and culture. Neither is better or worse than the other. And for the record, I never once implied that only cancer research is real research. Cancer research just has a lot more money flowing to it than psych right now, and if you ask me that's actually a poor reflection on their relative importance.

Funny enough I don't work in "my med school's lab" (if that were even a thing). A lot of weird assumptions going on here, but I hope you see the point I'm making. Neuroscience =/= psych, and psych has a very different culture around research compared to some other specialties.

Agree. I think that FM (and maybe EM secondarily) is the one true specialty that is barebones clinical medicine and devoid of research. All other specialties are going to have some strong connections to research, especially if you’re in academics.

 

[DrStephenStrange]

I would say for Neurology, the exception would be for the top tier programs. They tend to be very heavily research-oriented, so most of the competitive applicants have some research. Neurology is a hot field for NIH funding, so the top programs place an emphasis on research. Even for mid-tier programs, while it’s not necessary, it definitely looks good to have some research.

I interviewed at mid to low tier places this year, and I have 0 publication. I only have 1 neuro related poster and that's about it. Research was never mentioned in any of my interviews. I do think it may be important for high tier places though, and that it always helps to have some type of research in your application.

 

[90sportsfan]

Which programs in particular? I'm applying neuro in the fall and have 1 neuro-related case report but nothing else research wise

It’s mainly the “NIH R25” funded residency programs. The usual academic heavyweights (JHU, UPenn, MGH/BW/etc, UCSF, Columbia, Stanford, Michigan, Northwestern, etc, etc)

NINDS Research Education Grant (R25) Program Awardees

NINDS Research Education Grant Programs for Residents and Fellows in Neurology, Neurosurgery, Neuropathology, and Neuroradiology California University of California at Davis Title: UC Davis Clinician Neuroscientist Development Program Program Directors: Griffith R. Harsh IV, M.D., and Michael...

www.ninds.nih.gov

Many of these programs have a good number of MD/PhD residents each year. You can look at the websites of these programs to get a sense of their residency classes. Obviously I’m sure there are some residents that match with minimal research, but the typical competitive applicant will likely have some research and express research interest. Many of the competitive residents have pretty significant research experience.

 

[voxveritatisetlucis]

It’s mainly the “NIH R25” funded residency programs. The usual academic heavyweights (JHU, UPenn, MGH/BW/etc, UCSF, Columbia, Stanford, Michigan, Northwestern, etc, etc)

NINDS Research Education Grant (R25) Program Awardees

NINDS Research Education Grant Programs for Residents and Fellows in Neurology, Neurosurgery, Neuropathology, and Neuroradiology California University of California at Davis Title: UC Davis Clinician Neuroscientist Development Program Program Directors: Griffith R. Harsh IV, M.D., and Michael...

www.ninds.nih.gov

Many of these programs have a good number of MD/PhD residents each year. You can look at the websites of these programs to get a sense of their residency classes. Obviously I’m sure there are some residents that match with minimal research, but the typical competitive applicant will likely have some research and express research interest. Many of the competitive residents have pretty significant research experience.

Can middling to low tier MDs (prestige wise not scores/grades) match these programs with enough research?

 

[sloop]

Can middling to low tier MDs (prestige wise not scores/grades) match these programs with enough research?

I am not a neuro resident, but I did psych residency at one of the programs he mentioned. I interacted a lot with the neuro residents, both on my neuro rotations as an intern and as an upper-level resident when they came to rotate with us on consults. I will say that the residents seemed to come from a variety of med schools and I didn’t get the impression that where you went specifically was a huge factor. There were several residents with PhDs, though most did not have have PhDs. The proportion of PhDs seemed similar to my own psych program (like 20-30%).

Overall my impression was that the answer to your question is yes, at least at my institution’s neuro program. But again, I’m not a neurologist.

 

[mrbreakfast]

Which programs in particular?

The programs mentioned above, but specifically the big four (MGH/BW, UCSF, Mayo, JHU) as well as Penn come to mind as research-heavy.

You can tell if a program is research-heavy if they have dedicated research blocks in their resident schedule. This is not standard practice in neurology residencies.

Can middling to low tier MDs (prestige wise not scores/grades) match these programs with enough research?

Probably not, TBH. Unfortunately these programs, like IM programs, place a decent amount of emphasis on your med school. I interviewed at pretty much all the T20 programs I applied to (most of them) except the ones I mentioned above, and I had high grades, high scores, strong letters, research...but a midrange med school. But maybe I was just unlucky, so you might as well apply.

Also, you can absolutely match to a top-20 neurology program (maybe not top-5, but top-20) with zero research. If the program you're applying to is a busy center (which some of the top-tier programs are not) they're going to value clinical skills before research skills. Neurology residency is very busy, and with the midlevel expansion (which indirectly affects neurology by drastically increasing the number of consults) it's only going to get busier.

 

[sloop]

The programs mentioned above, but specifically the big four (MGH/BW, UCSF, Mayo, JHU) as well as Penn come to mind as research-heavy.

You can tell if a program is research-heavy if they have dedicated research blocks in their resident schedule. This is not standard practice in neurology residencies.


Probably not, TBH. Unfortunately these programs, like IM programs, place a decent amount of emphasis on your med school. I interviewed at pretty much all the T20 programs I applied to (most of them) except the ones I mentioned above, and I had high grades, high scores, strong letters, research...but a midrange med school. But maybe I was just unlucky, so you might as well apply.

Also, you can absolutely match to a top-20 neurology program (maybe not top-5, but top-20) with zero research. If the program you're applying to is a busy center (which some of the top-tier programs are not) they're going to value clinical skills before research skills. Neurology residency is very busy, and with the midlevel expansion (which indirectly affects neurology by drastically increasing the number of consults) it's only going to get busier.

Speaking of busy . . . as I said, I was a psych resident at one of these places. The neuro residents had the most atrocious call schedule and responsibilities on call. At least at one of the hospitals they rotated at, the resident on call was responsible for all stroke calls, consults, neuro inpatients and neuro ICU patients (they had a weird “open ICU” setup and the normal neuro team was technically the primary for the ICU patients). It seemed atrocious, and I was really glad I didn’t have to take neuro call.

 

[mrbreakfast]

At least at one of the hospitals they rotated at, the resident on call was responsible for all stroke calls, consults, neuro inpatients and neuro ICU patients

I mean, this is standard practice for neurology residencies. Workload can be comparable to some community OBGYN/GS residencies. Residents are expected to provide comprehensive medical care for anything that doesn't require surgery, neurological or not ("we don't consult until we've tried"). You can easily get 25 consults a night and get six stroke alerts in 10 minutes. It's busy because the real world is busy too.

If that sounds scary, not all neurology residencies are like that. Many are outpatient focused. Most neurologists never set foot in a hospital after graduation anyway, and if you decide you want to, neurology literally has a "fifth year of residency" fellowship (neurohospitalist fellowship) which I don't think any other fields do.

Very different from psych residency as far as I can tell. I appreciate my psych colleagues but would figure residents would benefit from an actually challenging workload on the inpatient side.