Skip to main content
Log in

2019 musculoskeletal radiology fellowship match process: initial experiences and lessons learned

  • Scientific Article
  • Published:
Skeletal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To present the 2019 Musculoskeletal (MSK) fellowship Match information most useful to MSK fellowship programs and sections in hopes of optimizing the fellowship application and selection process for MSK fellowship applicants and training programs.

Materials/methods

We performed a mixed method analysis to gain a better understanding of the 2019 MSK Fellowship Match process. First, we distributed a ten-question survey to the fellowship leadership from the 78 US fellowship programs registered with the Society of Skeletal Radiology. Second, we collected and reviewed NRMP Match data that were distributed on Match Day.

Results

We received completed surveys from 37 (45.7%) programs. Thirty-three (89.2%) of the responding programs identified themselves as academic, 3 (8.1%) as hybrid, and 1 (2.7%) as private practice. On average, programs interviewed 15.4 applicants over the interview session, with a range between 2 and 40. There was an average of 2.7 (range 1–8) open positions per fellowship and 1.2 (range 0–4) internal candidates per program. Each program interviewed 5.8 applicants per open position (range 1–24). There were a total of 81 certified MSK fellowship programs and 204 available positions in these programs. Twenty-four programs (29.6%) did not fill all positions resulting in a total of 36 unfilled positions (17.6%). The percentage of MSK unfilled programs, unfilled positions, and unmatched applicants were comparable to the Breast Imaging and Neuroradiology subspecialty matches.

Conclusion

The MSK Fellowship Match was a success with high match rates for applicants and programs. Most importantly, the Match allowed programs to make more informed decisions on their fellowship training opportunities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Radiology match results statistics in the specialities matching service for 2020 appointments. Washington, DC: National Resident Matching Program. Accessed 6/12/19.

  2. Demertzis JL, Baker JC, Friedman MV, Resnik CS, Miller TT, Rubin DA. Musculoskeletal radiology fellowship application and selection process: perceptions of residents, fellows, and fellowship directors. Acad Radiol. 2018;25(9):1219–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Glover M, Patel TY. The radiology fellowship arms race cannot be won. J Am Coll Radiol. 2016;13(4):461–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Pfeifer CM. Breast imaging match highlights the need to unify the approach to fellowship. Acad Radiol. 2018;25(4):543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Hoffmann JC, Azimov N, Chick JFB, et al. The current status of the interventional radiology fellowship match: results of a resident survey. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2018;47(3):146–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Soterios Gyftopoulos.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gyftopoulos, S., Demertzis, J.L. & Casagranda, B. 2019 musculoskeletal radiology fellowship match process: initial experiences and lessons learned. Skeletal Radiol 49, 1109–1114 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-020-03393-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-020-03393-0

Keywords

Navigation