About Michelle Lin, MD

ALiEM Founder and CEO
Professor and Digital Innovation Lab Director
Department of Emergency Medicine
University of California, San Francisco

EM Match Advice 47: 2025 EM Match By The Numbers

EM Match Advice 2025 Match by the numbers

The Emergency Medicine (EM) Match process continues to evolve, with the specialty experiencing significant shifts in recent years. In this 47th installment of the EM Match Advice podcast series, Dr. Sara Krzyzaniak (Stanford EM PD) hosts the annual program director reflection on the Match with Dr. Abra Fant (Northwestern EM PD), who returns for her fourth consecutive year to share insights on the NRMP Match trends and data. 

Podcast Episode: EM Match by the Numbers

 

Tables: EM Match by the Numbers

EM Match Advice by the Numbers

 

EM Match by the Numbers by specialty

 

Key 2025 Match Statistics: A Clear Improvement

Significant Reduction in Unfilled Positions

The most notable trend in the 2025 EM match is the continued reduction in unfilled positions:

  • 65 (2%) unfilled positions in 2025, down from 135 (4%) unfilled positions in 2024
  • This continues the positive trend from the peak of 554 (18%) unfilled positions in 2023

Dr. Fant notes this represents a faster-than-expected recovery: “I think we all suspected we would recover as a specialty, but looking at other specialties that have gone through similar roller coasters, I think this recovery has been more rapid than potentially others anticipated.”

Program and Position Growth

The 2025 match showed stable program numbers with modest growth in positions:

  • 292 EM programs in 2025, unchanged from 2024
  • 3,068 total positions offered, up slightly from 3,026 in 2024
  • 3,753 total applicants to EM in 2025, up slightly from 3,574 in 2024

Applicant Demographics Remain Stable

The composition of the EM applicant pool remained relatively consistent year-over-year:

  • 1,514 US MD seniors (40% of applicants)
  • 1,231 DO seniors (33% of applicants)
  • The remaining 27% comprised IMGs and other applicant types

Fill Rates by Applicant Type

The distribution of positions filled by different applicant types remained stable:

  • 1,377 positions filled by US MD seniors (45% of filled positions)
  • 1,078 positions filled by DO seniors (35% of filled positions)
  • 446 positions filled by US IMGs (15% of filled positions)
  • The fill rate for EM positions was 98% overall

Factors Driving Success in the EM Match

Several key factors contribute to the improved Match results and program director priorities:

  1. Realistic interview and ranking practices
  2. Effective use of preference signals
  3. Better distribution of interviews 
  4. Geographic considerations
  5. Demonstrated interest in Emergency Medicine

Looking Ahead: Changes on the Horizon

Several significant changes are coming to EM education and the application process:

  • Proposed Resident Review Committee (RRC) program requirements: New RRC requirements were announced right around rank list certification day, which could significantly impact the upcoming match cycle.
  • Transition to ResidencyCAS system: The specialty is moving from ERAS to ResidencyCAS, representing substantial shift to an entirely new platform to manage applications, interviews, and communications.

Despite these upcoming changes, Dr. Fant remains optimistic: “Overall this is a really positive outlook for applicants to emergency medicine in the upcoming 2025-26 Match cycle.”

“EM is one of the best specialties. It has been for many years and we have overcome plenty of roadblocks. We hope that you will join our ranks.”

Read and Listen to the Other EM Match Advice Episodes

Blog posts: https://www.aliem.com/em-match-advice-series/

 

By |2025-05-25T13:11:16-07:00Apr 24, 2025|EM Match Advice, Medical Student|

EM Match Advice 46 | Program Directors Share Match Season Insights

EM Match Advice 46 podcast match season

As interview season wraps up, medical students across the country are preparing their rank lists for the upcoming Match. EM Match Advice podcast host, Dr. Sara Krzyzaniak (Stanford EM Program Director) recently sat down with Dr. Melissa Parsons (University of Florida College of Medicine – Jacksonville EM Program Director), to discuss the match process from both program and applicant perspectives.

Podcast: Match Season Insights

Podcast Sound Engineer: Dr. Kaitlin Bowers 

What’s Happening on the Program Side?

Programs are busy finalizing their rank lists through comprehensive meetings with their teams. Many programs, including UF Jacksonville, are intentionally completing their rank lists before hosting second looks in February. This approach ensures that second look attendance doesn’t influence ranking decisions.

Do Letters of Intent Matter?

The impact of post-interview communication varies by program. While some program directors may give slight consideration to genuine letters of intent, there’s a consensus that “ranking you highly” letters carry little weight. Dr. Parsons notes that programs can verify the authenticity of “#1” declarations on Match Day, making honesty crucial in these communications.

Creating Your Rank List: What Really Matters

Focus on these key factors:

  • Mentorship opportunities
  • Program reputation and graduate outcomes
  • Geographic location
  • Support systems and work-life balance
  • Clinical training environment
  • Fellowship and career opportunities
  • Your gut feeling about the program

What to avoid:

  • Overvaluing others’ opinions on programs
  • Putting too much stock in online forums/spreadsheets
  • Making decisions based on minor perks or small salary differences

Strategic Advice for Applicants

  1. Make Your List Early: Write down your rankings and display them somewhere visible. Live with the list for a few weeks before certification.
  2. Consider Location: Think beyond the hospital – where do you want to live for the next 3-4 years?
  3. Be Thorough: While top and bottom choices might be clear, pay special attention to middle-ranked programs. Given recent Match unpredictability, thorough consideration of all ranked programs is crucial.
  4. Attend Second Looks Strategically: Use these opportunities to gather information for your decision-making, understanding that programs should have their lists finalized beforehand.

Important Dates

  • February 3, 2025: Rank list entry opens
  • March 5, 2025: Rank list certification deadline
  • March 21, 2025: Match Day

Final Thoughts

Remember that the Match algorithm favors applicant preferences. Focus on creating a rank list that reflects your true preferences rather than trying to predict where programs might rank you. Trust your instincts and prioritize what matters most to you in your training journey.

Read and Listen to the Other EM Match Advice Episodes

Blog posts: https://www.aliem.com/em-match-advice-series/

 

 

 

 

By |2025-01-25T12:55:15-08:00Jan 29, 2025|EM Match Advice, Podcasts|

EM Match Advice 44: Approaching your EM sub-internship clerkship – “Just gotta roll with it”

EM match advice approaching your sub-internship clerksihp

Dr. Sara Krzyzaniak (podcast host and Stanford University PD) and Dr. Michelle Lin (ALiEM Founder/UCSF) are joined by Dr. Jessica Bod (Yale University Clerkship Director and 2024 CDEM Clerkship Director of the Year award winner) in this episode to discuss how one might approach their emergency medicine sub-internship. Dr. Bod shares her her wealth of experience and wisdom to provide not only general advice but also answers more detailed questions like:

  • What are some things NOT to do on a rotation?
  • How do I judge my own competitiveness in the residency application process?
  • What if I have decided late in the process that emergency medicine is the career fit for me?
  • What should I expect AFTER the rotation?

Podcast: Approaching your EM Sub-Internship Clerkship

 

Mentioned Links

Read and Listen to the Other EM Match Advice Episodes

Blog posts: https://www.aliem.com/em-match-advice-series/

 

 

 

 

By |2024-06-24T16:29:00-07:00Jun 25, 2024|EM Match Advice, Medical Student, Podcasts|

From Collision to Clarity: PECARN cervical spine injury prediction rule for injured children

PECARN cervical spine injury prediction tool featured image (adapted from Midjourney)

For years, adult literature has provided clear guidelines for cervical spine imaging through the NEXUS and Canadian C-spine Rule (CCR) tools. These have been invaluable in helping clinicians decide when to image the neck in trauma patients. Similarly, the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN) has developed robust tools for assessing blunt head trauma in children. However, until now, there has been a gap in guidance for clinicians managing pediatric patients at risk for cervical spine injuries.

Case Scenario: What would you do?

A 10-year-old boy presents to the emergency department (ED) after a high-speed motor vehicle collision. He complains of neck pain and is reluctant to move his head. The child’s mother is extremely worried, fearing the worst after witnessing the collision.

The Problem

Cervical spine injuries in children, while uncommon, can be devastating if not identified and treated promptly. Emergency physicians often face the challenge of deciding whether to proceed with imaging, given the potential risks associated with ionizing radiation from CT scans. The lack of clear guidelines specifically tailored for pediatric patients has historically led to either overuse of imaging, with its associated risks, or underuse, with the risk of missed injuries.

PECARN Cervical Spine Injury Prediction Rule

On June 4, 2024, Lancet published “PECARN prediction rule for cervical spine imaging of children presenting to the emergency department with blunt trauma: a multicentre prospective observational study.” This study proposes a new clinical prediction rule to guide imaging decisions for pediatric cervical spine injuries.

The study enrolled 22,430 children, aged 0–17 years, presenting with blunt trauma across 18 PECARN-affiliated ED in the US. About half were in the derivation and half in the validation cohort. The researchers derived and validated a clinical prediction rule using data from these children, which identified key risk factors for cervical spine injury, divided into high-risk and non-negligible (intermediate) risk factors.

High Risk (>12.1% risk of injury) -> Consider CT

  • Altered mental status (GCS 3-8 or AVPU = U)
  • Abnormal airway
  • Breathing
  • Circulation findings
  • Focal neurological deficits

Intermediate Risk (2.8% risk of injury) -> Consider X-Rays

  • Neck pain or midline neck tenderness
  • Mental status: GCS 9-14, AVPU = V or P, or other signs of altered mental status
  • Substantial head or torso injury

Definition on Cervical Spine Injury

  • Fractures or ligamentous injuries of the cervical spine
  • Cervical intraspinal hemorrhage
  • Cerebral artery injury
  • Cervical spinal cord injury, including
    • Changes in the cervical spinal cord on MRI
    • Cervical spinal cord injury without radiographic association
PECARN Cervical Spine Injury Prediction Tool

PECARN Cervical Spine Injury Prediction Tool (Download full sized PDF at PECARN site)

The prediction rule had strong test characteristics with 94.3% sensitivity and 99.9% negative predictive value, indicating that it can reliably identify children who do not need imaging, thus avoiding unnecessary radiation exposure. This evidence-based approach to pediatric trauma care would have reduced the number of CT scans by more than 50% without missing clinically relevant injuries.

Case Example Resolution

Using the PECARN cervical spine injury prediction rule, the attending physician evaluates the boy and finds that he does not exhibit any high-risk factors. However, because he reports neck pain and has midline neck tenderness on exam (intermediate risk), the rule recommends that the cervical spine can not be clinically cleared. It also suggests plain x-rays and not a CT scan. This differs from the adult population whereby CT scan imaging is often the first choice for diagnostic testing.

The x-rays reveal no evidence of cervical spine injury, and the boy is cleared with instructions for follow-up care. This approach not only alleviated the mother’s anxiety but also avoided unnecessary radiation exposure for the child.

Reference

Leonard JC, Harding M, Cook LJ, et al. PECARN prediction rule for cervical spine imaging of children presenting to the emergency department with blunt trauma: a multicentre prospective observational study. Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2024;8(7):482-490. doi:10.1016/S2352-4642(24)00104-4. PMID 38843852

By |2026-01-08T21:25:20-08:00Jun 10, 2024|Pediatrics, Radiology, Trauma|

Hot off the press: Bridge to EM curriculum (2nd edition) released

bridge to em emergency medicine 2nd edition

It has been 3 years since the 8-week, self-guided Bridge to Emergency Medicine (EM) curriculum was launched to help graduating medical students prepare for EM residency. The curriculum has been viewed over 43,000 times and we have awarded over 5,000 ALiEMU course certificates. It is now a part of many residency programs’ intern boot camp.

Launching the 2nd edition of Bridge to EM (2024)

We are thrilled to announce that we launching the second edition of the curriculum.

This was made possible thanks to our new co-editor, Dr. Andres Lopez, who revamped and updated the entire curriculum with Dr. Christina Shenvi to include more current articles, updated links, and new quiz questions. We also include a broader representation of foundational learning content such as the interpretation of diagnostic imaging as well as professional competency skills (e.g., communication, efficiency).

Check out the Bridge to EM home page and then head over to take the 9 free ALiEMU weekly quizzes.

By |2024-05-05T21:16:13-07:00May 6, 2024|ALiEMU, Medical Student|

EM Match Advice 43: EM Program Directors Reflect on the 2024 Match

em program directors reflect on 2024 matchDr. Sara Krzyzaniak (podcast host and Stanford University PD) and Dr. Michelle Lin (ALiEM Founder/UCSF) are joined by Dr. Abra Fant (Northwestern PD) in this discussion reflecting on the 2024 Match results, after last year’s shocking number of 500+ unfilled positions. Here are the 2024 relevant numbers for Emergency Medicine, as compared to prior years. In the following podcast, we run down the numbers and what they might mean for the future.

em 2024 match from nrmp competitive table

Match Fill Rates Across Specialties in 2024

 In 2023 Match, the number of unfilled positions was 554 for EM. This has been dramatically reduced to 135 in only one year, although still above previous counts of ≤30 before 2022. 

em 2024 match competitive numbers for other specialties

Episode 43: Reflecting on the 2024 Match

 

Mentioned Link

NRMP Main Residency Match and Reports 

Read and Listen to the Other EM Match Advice Episodes

Blog posts: https://www.aliem.com/em-match-advice-series/


 

By |2024-04-29T16:58:57-07:00Apr 30, 2024|EM Match Advice, Medical Student, Podcasts|

EM Match Advice 42: Mid Interview Season Check-In

EM Match Advice featuring Dr Aaron KrautDr. Sara Krzyzaniak (podcast host and Stanford University PD) and Dr. Michelle Lin (ALiEM Founder/UCSF) are joined by Dr. Aaron Kraut (University of Wisconsin PD) in this insightful, rapid-fire, practical episode through the lens of experienced residency program directors.

  • What does the Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) preliminary data show just far for the 2024 residency application season?
  • Has the program signaling option been working? 
  • Have there been any surprises or changes during interview season?
  • What should students think about in the post-interview stage? 

Episode 42: Mid Interview Season Check-In

 

Preliminary ERAS Data for Emergency Medicine Residency

Number of Applicants for EM Residency

Graduate TypeERAS 2023ERAS 2024
DO9441,340
IMG7631,437
MD1,4841,568
Overall3,1914,345

 

Average Number of Applications per Person*

Graduate TypeERAS 2023ERAS 2024
DO5950
IMG6348
MD4942
Overall5647

 

Average Number of Applicants per EM Residency Program*

Graduate TypeERAS 2023ERAS 2024
DO202239
IMG175245
MD265238
Overall642722

 

* Values were rounded to whole numbers

 

Mentioned Links

  1. Preiksaitis C, Krzyzaniak S, Bowers K, et al. Characteristics of Emergency Medicine Residency Programs With Unfilled Positions in the 2023 Match. Ann Emerg Med. 2023;82(5):598-607. doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2023.06.002. PMID 37436344
  2. Jewell C, David T, Kraut A, Hess J, Westergaard M, Schnapp BH. Post-interview Thank-you Communications Influence Both Applicant and Residency Program Rank Lists in Emergency Medicine. West J Emerg Med. 2019 Dec 9;21(1):96-101. doi: 10.5811/westjem.2019.10.44031. PMID: 31913827; PMCID: PMC6948692.

Read and Listen to the Other EM Match Advice Episodes

Blog posts: https://www.aliem.com/em-match-advice-series/

 

By |2024-01-04T22:44:07-08:00Jan 5, 2024|EM Match Advice, Medical Student, Podcasts|
Go to Top