{"id":1046,"date":"2024-04-24T13:48:07","date_gmt":"2024-04-24T17:48:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/journal.aoao.org\/?p=1046"},"modified":"2024-05-06T13:50:01","modified_gmt":"2024-05-06T17:50:01","slug":"trends-in-orthopaedic-match-characteristics-in-an-osteopathic-resident-profile-2-0","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journal.aoao.org\/?p=1046","title":{"rendered":"Trends in Orthopaedic Match Characteristics in an Osteopathic Resident Profile 2.0\u00a0"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Jessica Ng OMS IV, SAOAO1<\/sup><\/strong>; Ryan Johnson Data Scientist2<\/sup>; Ali Al Saeed3<\/sup>; Kyse Dahdal3<\/sup>; Maddison Messmer DO4<\/sup>; Brian Handal DO, RAOAO, Orthopedic Spine Fellow5<\/sup>; Julieanne P. Sees DO, MBA, FAOAO, FAOA, FAAOS Pediatric Orthopedic Surgeon, Fellow of Osteopathic Medicine6<\/sup>
1<\/sup>Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine – South Georgia
2<\/sup>Capitol Technology University
3<\/sup>Saint Xavier University
4<\/sup>Kettering Health Dayton Department of Orthopedic Surgery
5<\/sup>Florida Orthopedic Institute 
6<\/sup>National Academy of Medicine<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Abstract<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Background<\/strong>
Matching into orthopaedic surgery residency is highly competitive. Data are limited regarding characteristics in an applicant\u2019s profile who successfully matched in the selection process. This study aimed to quantify trends in characteristics of osteopathic orthopaedic residents and changes within American Osteopathic Academy of Orthopedics (AOAO) distinctive workforce regarding their experiences before residency. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Methods<\/strong>
A confidential optional online survey was distributed with questions aimed at identifying trends in the characteristics of osteopathic orthopaedic residents. Responses of Postgraduate Year (PGY) senior residents, defined as Current PGY 4-5\u2019s in-training across 39 osteopathic orthopedic residency programs, were compared to Prior PGY\u2019s, defined as active AOAO members and orthopaedic residency program directors. Results were analyzed, such as clinical experiences and\/or gap year(s) prior to medical school; publications prior to residency; whether USMLE was taken, which Step(s) and what motivation; number of audition rotations\/programs applied\/interviews; and whether auditioned at matched residency. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Results<\/strong>
Overall, 58 participants completed the survey, 87.9% males and 12.1% females, consisting of 93.1% White, 3.4% Black, 1.7% American Indian\/Alaskan Native, and 1.7% two or more\/mixed ethnicity. 22 participants were Current PGY\u2019s with average age 32.8 years and 36 were Prior PGY\u2019s with average age 50 years at time of survey. Of 38 responses, the most common clinical experience prior to medical school was medical technician\/physical therapist (PT) at 31.6%. Of 30 responses, Current PGY\u2019s averaged 1.2 gap years (12, range: 0-5 years) while Prior PGY\u2019s averaged 1.3 years (18, range: 0-7 years). Prior to residency, the average number of publications for Current PGY\u2019s was 3-4, whereas Prior PGY\u2019s was 0-1.\u00a0\u00a0Between the groups, the majority of participants did not take USMLE Step 1, and for those who did, the majority did not take USMLE Step 2. When asked why USMLE was taken 50% responded for their own personal interest or satisfaction, and 50% responded it was residency motivated. Between Prior and Current PGY\u2019s, the average number of orthopaedic audition rotations increased by 1.5. Interestingly, 95.5% of Current PGY\u2019s rotated at their matched orthopedics program, whereas 77.8% of Prior PGY\u2019s rotated at their matched program. Prior PGY\u2019s applied to an average of 11 residency programs (range: 1-30), while Current PGY\u2019s submitted an average of 29 applications (range: 10-120). The average number of residency programs at which a participant interviewed only increased by 2, with Current PGY\u2019s averaging 5 interviews (range: 2-10) and Prior PGYs averaging 3 (range: 1-11).\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conclusions\/ Discussion<\/strong>
Overall, there is a trend towards a more complex applicant, with a slight increase in publications and, most significantly, an increase in match success with an audition and interview at the ultimate residency program. With such knowledge, this provides insight into the growing AOAO residency membership, including a holistic approach to candidate selection which ultimately enhances the future of the orthopaedic workforce. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Keywords:<\/strong> Osteopathic, Match, Orthopedic Surgery, Orthopaedic, Residency, Graduate Medical Education, Medical Student<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Introduction<\/strong>
Orthopaedic surgery residency is one of the most highly competitive fields in which to match. Every year, thousands of medical student applicants apply for a limited number of residency positions. However, data are limited regarding the characteristics of successfully matched osteopathic orthopaedic surgery residents. With the field changing rapidly, from the 2020 transition of the American Osteopathic Association (AOA) and the American Council of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) to form a single graduate medical education (GME) accreditation system to the movement of the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) and the Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination of the United States (COMLEX-USA) going to pass or fail in 2022, the need for discrete quantization of resident characteristics is now more crucial than ever. Moreover, novel data regarding the characteristics of prior and current Doctor of Osteopathy (DO) residents in traditionally osteopathy orthopaedic residency programs proves advantageous for residency applicants and shaping the future of both medical education and the orthopaedic profession. 

According to 2022 data from the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP), there were 210 orthopedic surgery residency programs with a total of 875 PGY-1 positions available. A total of 1470 applicants applied, consisting of 205 osteopathic medical students\/DO, 1,086 allopathic medical students\/Medical Doctor (MD), and resulted in 80.6% of MD Seniors matched and 12.7% of DO Seniors matched, with 0 spots going unfilled (1). The burden on orthopaedic residency program applicants, especially DO applicants, to compete in this field continues to grow exponentially with each cycle. By examining the characteristics of successfully matched osteopathic orthopaedic residents, both prior and current with the membership of the national osteopathic orthopaedic academy of the AOAO, we can further explore what personal profile and experience lends to match into one of the most coveted specialties. In order to select the most holistic residents, many facets of a medical student\u2019s application are commonly examined by orthopaedic residency programs. These often include prior experiences to medical school, including jobs and gap years, number of publications, choice of board examination(s), how many and where were audition rotations performed, and how many interviews were completed. Having no reports recorded in the literature, our current study aims to investigate the characteristics of a successfully matched osteopathic orthopaedic surgery resident\u2019s profile. Our purpose is to quantify trends in characteristics of osteopathic orthopaedic residents and changes within the AOAO distinctive workforce regarding their experiences before residency.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Methods<\/strong>
To understand the trends in the characteristics of matched osteopathic orthopedic residents, a confidential optional online survey was distributed to current PGY 4-5\u2019s in training across 39 osteopathic orthopedic residency programs, active AOAO members and orthopaedic residency program directors. Active AOAO members, including orthopaedic residency program directors, are all orthopaedic surgeons who have completed an orthopaedic surgical residency after graduating from an accredited school\/college of osteopathic medicine. The qualitative data collected included: clinical experiences and\/or gap year(s) prior to medical school; publications prior to residency; whether the USMLE was taken, which Step(s) and the motivation behind taking the exam; the number of audition rotations\/ programs applied\/ interviews; and whether they auditioned at their matched residency. Responses of Current PGY\u2019s, defined as PGY 4-5\u2019s currently in-training, were compared to Prior PGY\u2019s, defined as active AOAO members and program directors. Statistical analysis was performed with Google Sheets and included mean values, standard deviation, Pearson correlation coefficient, and interquartile ranges. This analysis was utilized to further evaluate categorical variables. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Results<\/strong>
The survey yielded a total of 58 responses: 22 Current PGY\u2019s and 36 Prior PGY\u2019s. Of the total responses, 87.9% were males and 12.1% were females with a distribution of 93.1% were White, 3.4% were Black, 1.7% were American Indian\/Alaskan Native, and 1.7% were two or more\/mixed ethnicity (Figure 1,2). At the time of the survey, Current PGY\u2019s had a mean age of 32.8 \u00b1 3.0 years, and Prior PGY\u2019s had a mean age of 50.9  \u00b1 13.0 years. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Between both groups (n=38), when asked what the most common clinical experience was prior to medical school, the majority reported \u201cOther\u201d at 47.7%. \u201cOther\u201d is categorized as a clinical experience other than a Scribe, Medical Technician\/Physical Therapy (PT), Medical Assistant, Registered Nurse, Physician Assistant, Research Coordinator\/ Research Specialist, or Surgical Technician. 31.6% reported prior experience as a Medical Technician\/PT, and 7.9% reported prior experience of research coordinator\/ research specialist. In regards to gap year(s), defined as taking time off between undergraduate\/post-baccalaureate education and medical school, 13 out of 22 Current PGY\u2019s indicated taking time off, reporting an average of 1.2 \u00b1 1.3 gap years with a range of 0-5 years, and 18 out of 36 Prior PGY\u2019s averaged 1.3 \u00b1 1.9 gap years with a range of 0-7 years. There was no significant difference in gap years between Prior and Current PGY\u2019s (t(54) = 2.00, p=.797).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Prior to residency, the average number of publications for Prior PGY\u2019s was 1 \u00b1 1 (range= 0-5), with a majority of 75% (n=23) having zero publications. Current PGY\u2019s had an average of 4 \u00b1 10 publications (range=0-45) with an outlier of 45 publications. The majority of this group had 0 publications (30%, n=7), 26% (n=6) had 1 publication, and 22% (n=5) had 2 publications. The results of the t-test indicated no significant difference between Prior and Current PGY\u2019s number of publications (t(55) = 2.30, p = .0879).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Data regarding whether the participant elected to take USMLE Step 1 or 2 were evaluated. Out of 36 total responses in the Prior PGY group, the majority 69% (n=25) did not take Step 1. Out of the 12 Prior PGY\u2019s who did take the USMLE Step 1, 50% (n=6) elected to take Step 2. When asked why they chose to take the USMLE, 25% (n=3) reported it was residency motivated, and 75% (n=9) reported they chose to take the exam out of personal interest\/ satisfaction. Out of 22 total responses, the majority 73% (n= 16) of Current PGY\u2019s elected to take Step 1, whereas 27% (n=6) did not. Of those who did take Step 1, 38% (n=6) elected to take USMLE Step 2. When asked why they chose to take the USMLE exam, 68% (n=11) reported being residency motivated, while 31% (n=5) reported personal interest\/ satisfaction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Orthopaedic auditions increased by an average of 1.5 auditions between Prior and Current PGY\u2019s. Prior PGY\u2019s had an average of 3.5 \u00b1 1.7 auditions (range=0-7). Current PGY\u2019s had an average of 5.0 \u00b1 1 auditions (range= 4-7) (Figure 3). 77.8% (n=28) of Prior PGY\u2019s rotated at their matched program, while 95.5% (n=21) of Current PGY\u2019s rotated at their matched program. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

When applying to orthopaedic programs, Prior PGY\u2019s submitted on average 11 \u00b1 9 applications (range=1-30), whereas Current PGY\u2019s submitted on average 29 \u00b1 23 applications (range= 10-120) (Figure 4). The average number of residencies at which a Prior vs. Current PGY\u2019s interviewed increased by 2, with Prior PGY\u2019s averaging 3 \u00b1 2.5 interviews (range=1-11), and Current PGY\u2019s averaging 5 \u00b1 2.1 interviews (range= 2-10) (Figure 5). When comparing the Pearson correlation coefficient between the groups, there was a significant positive correlation between number of applications vs. number of interviews for both Prior PGY\u2019s (r=.428, p=.000003) and Current PGY\u2019s (r= .349, p=.0002).

Discussion<\/strong>
This survey considered trends in some of the most prominent aspects of matching into an osteopathic orthopaedic residency. As a highly sought-after residency, orthopaedics continues to demonstrate competitive match interest indicated in this national orthopaedic membership. Additionally, osteopathic orthopaedic residency programs are known for selecting their residents based on the holistic picture of the candidate. Experiences prior to medical school between both groups, Prior vs. Current PGY\u2019s, showed an overall trend towards Medical Technician\/ PT, while the majority indicated \u201cOther\u201d category. This suggests growing opportunities of healthcare positions available to candidates, subsequently adding diversifying characteristics complimentary to the Profile 2.0, along with progressive enhancement of the varied experiences trending towards the holistic aspect of osteopathic physicians. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Gap years may also play a part in an outstanding holistic residency application. From our analysis, the overall amount of gap years remained minimally changed between the Prior PGY and Current PGY groups, with both groups taking on average 1-2 years off between undergraduate education and medical school. These data are congruent with survey data conducted by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) in  2019. Out of 15,151 matriculating students (i.e. accepted and starting medical school), the majority, 43.9%, responded they took 1-2 gap years, and overall 65.2% reported taking at least 1 gap year (2). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

One of the most profound changes in our trends data is the number of publications each group had prior to residency. An overwhelming majority of Prior PGY\u2019s had no prior publications, whereas the majority of Current PGY\u2019s had at least one publication. While our study is self-reported data and not able to verify the validity of these publications, there is a clear trend toward more publications in Current PGY\u2019s. Interestingly, the literature reports no longer any difference in allopathic senior orthopaedic application academic attributes of matched and unmatched orthopaedic surgery residency applicants regarding research products (abstracts, presentations, posters, and publications) admitting it has become less profound over time (3,4). Similarly, a separate report evaluating predictors of successful residency match in general surgery demonstrated research productivity with \u22654 abstracts, posters, or publications and \u22651 peer-reviewed publications to be just one of a combination of factors to be significant for successful match into general surgery (5). While suggestion has been made to medical schools to encourage students to prepare a holistic application for successful match into allopathic surgical residencies, our study confirms such practice continues to not only exist but thrive with historic track record of over 80 years embracing the true holistic approach of the osteopathic philosophy recognizing the multi-faceted orthopaedic candidates who successfully match into orthopaedic field and ultimately become AOAO members. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although the USMLE is not required for graduation from an osteopathic medical school, our study found that both Current and Prior PGY\u2019s chose to take USMLE Steps 1 and 2. As of 2022, the USMLE changed from a scored result to Pass\/Fail, so the data collected in this survey reflects data prior to this change. The majority of Prior PGY\u2019s did not choose to take USMLE Step 1; however, the majority of Current PGY\u2019s elected to take USMLE Step 1. Both groups reported lower numbers of USMLE Step 2 takers. The motivation differed between the two, from the majority of Prior PGY\u2019s revealing choice due to \u201cpersonal interest\/ satisfaction\u201d whereas in the Current PGY group it was \u201cresidency motivated\u201d. This demonstrates no clear definitive reason either self-driven or training encouragement, thereby calling to question utility for an osteopathic orthopaedic application and certainly proves not necessary in successful match into orthopaedic residency. Notable of consideration a report among allopathic senior orthopaedic applicants who match and unmatched found increasing difficulty in prediction ability of a successful match based on USMLE Step scores among other academic attributes, further supporting as demonstrated in our study the unnecessary election for osteopathic applications with no advantage in orthopaedic field pursuit and successful match (3). It does appear, be it osteopathic or allopathic, that future studies should evaluate more subjective, holistic metrics for better understanding of optimal candidate quality and selection within the orthopaedic workforce.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The number of orthopaedic audition rotations increased between the two groups, with Current PGY\u2019s completing more auditions than Prior PGY\u2019s. Interestingly, the percent of participants who rotated at their current residency program increased between the two groups, with almost all of the Current PGY\u2019s matching into a program at which a rotation was completed. Although Current PGY\u2019s submitted more applications and interviewed at more programs than Prior PGY\u2019s, our study demonstrates more applications did not correlate with a higher number of interviews. Despite a slightly higher correlation between number of applications and number of interviews in the Prior PGY\u2019s group, it remains unclear the effect on ultimate match success. The Prior PGY\u2019s group also spans more generations than the Current PGY\u2019s group, lending itself to increased confounding factors in match outcome; including being the first class of residents within the growing osteopathic graduate medical education training system and different application processes, to name a few.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Our survey study does recognize limitations. Our analysis captured self-reported data from participants within membership of active AOAO orthopaedic surgeons and current PGY4-5\u2019s. Overall, the sample of these populations was limited based on feedback. Additionally, since the survey was anonymous, there was no examination of the validity of the responses. Future consideration should include investigation of a larger sample , as well as comparison of the characteristics of PGY\u2019s after the transition to a single GME accreditation system and after boards change to a Pass\/Fail rather than numeric score, being imperative to analyzing the future of what might aid an osteopathic student Profile 3.0 to match into an orthopaedic residency. Despite the limitations of the study, this novel dataset is one of the only available at capturing most prominent osteopathic orthopedic resident characteristics over the past 40 years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conclusion<\/strong>
This study highlights the characteristics of successfully matched candidates over time both among current and prior osteopathic orthopaedic surgical residents. Overall, it captures an increasing trend of complexity to the Profile 2.0 applicant. Current residents show a slight increase in publications, an increase in number of auditions, and an increase in match success with an audition and interview at their ultimate residency program. Taking into account these conclusions, this study uniquely offers valuable understanding into the evolving AOAO membership including consistency in embracing an increasingly holistic individual within the future osteopathic orthopaedic workforce.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Acknowledgements<\/strong>
The authors would like to thank Joye Stewart, Jim Mason, DO, FAOAO, FAOA, and the staff at the AOAO who greatly aided us in our survey dissemination efforts. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Figure 1<\/a> | Figure 2<\/a> | Figure 3<\/a> | Figure 4<\/a> | Figure 5<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Required Disclosures and Declaration<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Copyright Information:<\/strong> No Copyright Information Added<\/em>
IRB Approval Information:<\/strong> Not applicable<\/em>
Disclosure Information:<\/strong> No known conflicts of interest<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

References<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. National Resident Matching Program, Results and Data: 2022 Main Residency Match\u00ae. National Resident Matching Program, Washington, DC. 2022.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. Association of American Medical Colleges Matriculating Student Questionnaire. 2019. Accessed June 7, 2023. https:\/\/www.aamc.org\/media\/38916\/download<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  3. Sudah SY, Imam N, Sirch F, Nicholson AD, Namdari S, Menendez ME. Differences in the Academic Attributes of Matched and Unmatched Orthopaedic Surgery Residency Applicants are Narrowing. JB JS Open Access<\/em>. 2023 Apr 13;8(2):e22.00138. doi: 10.2106\/JBJS.OA.22.00138. PMID: 37063934; PMCID: PMC10090792.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  4. Schrock JB, Kraeutler MJ, Dayton MR, McCarty EC. A Comparison of Matched and Unmatched Orthopaedic Surgery Residency Applicants from 2006 to 2014: Data from the National Resident Matching Program. J Bone Joint Surg Am<\/em>. 2017 Jan 4;99(1):e1. doi: 10.2106\/JBJS.16.00293. PMID: 28060237.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  5. Iwai Y, Lenze NR, Becnel CM, Mihalic AP, Stitzenberg KB. Evaluation of Predictors for Successful Residency Match in General Surgery. J Surg Educ. 2022 May-Jun;79(3):579-586. doi: 10.1016\/j.jsurg.2021.11.003. Epub 2021 Nov 29. PMID: 34852956.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Jessica Ng OMS IV, SAOAO1; Ryan Johnson Data Scientist2; Ali Al Saeed3; Kyse Dahdal3; Maddison Messmer DO4; Brian Handal DO, RAOAO, Orthopedic Spine Fellow5; Julieanne P. Sees DO, MBA, FAOAO, FAOA, FAAOS Pediatric Orthopedic Surgeon, Fellow of Osteopathic Medicine6 1Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine – South Georgia2Capitol Technology University3Saint Xavier University4Kettering Health Dayton Department of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[29],"tags":[63,60],"class_list":["post-1046","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-general","tag-current-concepts","tag-spring-2024"],"yoast_head":"\nTrends in Orthopaedic Match Characteristics in an Osteopathic Resident Profile 2.0\u00a0 - AOAO Journal<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/journal.aoao.org\/?p=1046\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Trends in Orthopaedic Match Characteristics in an Osteopathic Resident Profile 2.0\u00a0 - AOAO Journal\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Jessica Ng OMS IV, SAOAO1; Ryan Johnson Data Scientist2; Ali Al Saeed3; Kyse Dahdal3; Maddison Messmer DO4; Brian Handal DO, RAOAO, Orthopedic Spine Fellow5; Julieanne P. Sees DO, MBA, FAOAO, FAOA, FAAOS Pediatric Orthopedic Surgeon, Fellow of Osteopathic Medicine6 1Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine – South Georgia2Capitol Technology University3Saint Xavier University4Kettering Health Dayton Department of […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/journal.aoao.org\/?p=1046\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"AOAO Journal\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2024-04-24T17:48:07+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2024-05-06T17:50:01+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Ray Hall\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Ray Hall\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/journal.aoao.org\/?p=1046\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/journal.aoao.org\/?p=1046\",\"name\":\"Trends in Orthopaedic Match Characteristics in an Osteopathic Resident Profile 2.0\u00a0 - AOAO Journal\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/journal.aoao.org\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2024-04-24T17:48:07+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-05-06T17:50:01+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/journal.aoao.org\/#\/schema\/person\/b3ff623305ba59e337e22c31c9fc42e7\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/journal.aoao.org\/?p=1046#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/journal.aoao.org\/?p=1046\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/journal.aoao.org\/?p=1046#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/journal.aoao.org\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Trends in Orthopaedic Match Characteristics in an Osteopathic Resident Profile 2.0\u00a0\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/journal.aoao.org\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/journal.aoao.org\/\",\"name\":\"AOAO Journal\",\"description\":\"The Journal of the American Osteopathic Academy of Orthopedics (JAOAO)\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/journal.aoao.org\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/journal.aoao.org\/#\/schema\/person\/b3ff623305ba59e337e22c31c9fc42e7\",\"name\":\"Ray Hall\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/journal.aoao.org\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/77c2e3f00618d6950c250a915344c15d9f601fb38bd861cae3882e3489cd7d18?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/77c2e3f00618d6950c250a915344c15d9f601fb38bd861cae3882e3489cd7d18?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Ray Hall\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/journal.aoao.org\/?author=3\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Trends in Orthopaedic Match Characteristics in an Osteopathic Resident Profile 2.0\u00a0 - AOAO Journal","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/journal.aoao.org\/?p=1046","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Trends in Orthopaedic Match Characteristics in an Osteopathic Resident Profile 2.0\u00a0 - AOAO Journal","og_description":"Jessica Ng OMS IV, SAOAO1; Ryan Johnson Data Scientist2; Ali Al Saeed3; Kyse Dahdal3; Maddison Messmer DO4; Brian Handal DO, RAOAO, Orthopedic Spine Fellow5; Julieanne P. Sees DO, MBA, FAOAO, FAOA, FAAOS Pediatric Orthopedic Surgeon, Fellow of Osteopathic Medicine6 1Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine – South Georgia2Capitol Technology University3Saint Xavier University4Kettering Health Dayton Department of […]","og_url":"https:\/\/journal.aoao.org\/?p=1046","og_site_name":"AOAO Journal","article_published_time":"2024-04-24T17:48:07+00:00","article_modified_time":"2024-05-06T17:50:01+00:00","author":"Ray Hall","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Ray Hall","Est. reading time":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/journal.aoao.org\/?p=1046","url":"https:\/\/journal.aoao.org\/?p=1046","name":"Trends in Orthopaedic Match Characteristics in an Osteopathic Resident Profile 2.0\u00a0 - AOAO Journal","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/journal.aoao.org\/#website"},"datePublished":"2024-04-24T17:48:07+00:00","dateModified":"2024-05-06T17:50:01+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/journal.aoao.org\/#\/schema\/person\/b3ff623305ba59e337e22c31c9fc42e7"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/journal.aoao.org\/?p=1046#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/journal.aoao.org\/?p=1046"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/journal.aoao.org\/?p=1046#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/journal.aoao.org\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Trends in Orthopaedic Match Characteristics in an Osteopathic Resident Profile 2.0\u00a0"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/journal.aoao.org\/#website","url":"https:\/\/journal.aoao.org\/","name":"AOAO Journal","description":"The Journal of the American Osteopathic Academy of Orthopedics (JAOAO)","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/journal.aoao.org\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/journal.aoao.org\/#\/schema\/person\/b3ff623305ba59e337e22c31c9fc42e7","name":"Ray Hall","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/journal.aoao.org\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/77c2e3f00618d6950c250a915344c15d9f601fb38bd861cae3882e3489cd7d18?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/77c2e3f00618d6950c250a915344c15d9f601fb38bd861cae3882e3489cd7d18?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Ray Hall"},"url":"https:\/\/journal.aoao.org\/?author=3"}]}},"featured_image_src":null,"featured_image_src_square":null,"author_info":{"display_name":"Ray Hall","author_link":"https:\/\/journal.aoao.org\/?author=3"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journal.aoao.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1046","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journal.aoao.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journal.aoao.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journal.aoao.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journal.aoao.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1046"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/journal.aoao.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1046\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journal.aoao.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1046"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journal.aoao.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1046"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journal.aoao.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1046"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}