ReachRxResearch
Home
Research
Sign Up
Comparing international and US medical graduates in surgical subspecialties: meta-analysis of residency matching, research output, and postoperative outcomes
Back to Research Hub
  1. Home
  2. Research Hub
  3. Comparing international and US medical g…

Comparing international and US medical graduates in surgical subspecialties: meta-analysis of residency matching, research output, and postoperative outcomes

Surgical Endoscopy·August 4
SurgeryConfirms priorPostoperative OutcomesSurgical Residency TrainingSystematic Review And Meta-AnalysisSurgical EducationAdult

Summary

View source

What was studied

This meta-analysis (22 studies, 2002–2024) compared International Medical Graduates (IMGs) vs. US Medical Graduates (USMGs) across three domains in surgical subspecialties: residency/fellowship matching rates, research productivity (publications, H-index), and postoperative outcomes (mortality, 30-day complications).

Key findings

IMGs matched at much lower rates (pooled 5.4%, 95%CI 3–7.7%) and had lower fellowship match odds (OR 0.518, 95%CI 0.19–0.83), but outperformed USMGs in publications (WMD +10.9, 95%CI 2.45–19.3) and H-index (WMD +2.41, 95%CI 1.46–3.36). IMG faculty showed slightly higher postoperative mortality odds (OR 1.076, 95%CI 1.01–1.14) with no significant difference in 30-day complications (OR 1.033, p=0.576).

Study limitations

- Only 3 studies assessed postoperative outcomes, limiting conclusions on patient safety. - High heterogeneity and potential residual confounding weaken the mortality signal. - Most data came from neurosurgery and general surgery, limiting generalizability to other subspecialties.

Clinical implications

IMGs who clear the matching barrier appear to produce more research than USMGs and deliver broadly comparable surgical outcomes — the small mortality signal is statistically marginal and likely confounded. Program directors should weigh IMG research productivity as a genuine strength during selection.

Caveats

  • The fellowship match pooled estimate is reported as an odds ratio (0.518), not a rate, unlike the residency match figure — these metrics are not directly comparable.
  • The level of evidence is rated 3 (systematic review of observational studies) because the included studies are predominantly observational, not RCTs.
  • The postoperative mortality finding (OR 1.076) is based on only 3 studies with high heterogeneity — clinical significance is uncertain and causality cannot be established.
Show all 4
  • The sample_size tag reflects the number of included studies (n=22), not a patient-level N, as aggregate patient numbers were not reported in the abstract.

Related Questions

Explore related topics

How do international medical graduates perform on ABSITE and board exams compared to US graduates?What factors predict IMG success in US surgical residency matching?Do patient outcomes differ based on surgeon training background in high-volume cancer surgery?

Publication Details

Year
2026
Journal
Surgical Endoscopy
Sample Size
n=22
Source
View article
Keep scrolling
More content below.
Up Next