Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 1, 2026

Destabilization of the Medial Meniscus and Cartilage Scratch Murine Model of Accelerated Osteoarthritis
Published on: July 6, 2022
Allopathic (MD) and Osteopathic (DO) Performance on the American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
James A Sliwa1, Mikaela M Raddatz2, Carolyn L Kinney3
1Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine/Shirley Ryan AbilityLab, Chicago, IL.
Background:
Osteopathic physicians (DOs) represent over 30% of residents in allopathic (MD) Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) accredited physical medicine and rehabilitation (PM&R) training programs. However, some have questioned the quality of osteopathic medical school training and the graduates of osteopathic medical schools. The performance of osteopathic physicians in allopathic PM&R training programs has not been assessed.
Objective:
To compare allopathic (MD) and osteopathic (DO) physician performance on American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (ABPMR) initial certifying examinations.
Design:
Retrospective cross-sectional study.
Setting:
Board-eligible PM&R physicians.
Participants:
MDs and DOs who completed an allopathic ACGME-accredited PM&R residency training program.
Methods:
MD and DO pass rates and mean scaled scores on the ABPMR initial certifying examinations were compared. MD versus DO degrees and training program 6 years aggregate board pass rates were independent variables.
Interventions:
Not applicable.
Main Outcome Measure:
MD and DO pass rates and mean scaled scores on the ABPMR initial certifying examinations.
Results:
Of the 2187 physicians who were first-time ABPMR initial certifying examination takers, there were 1596 MDs (73%) and 591 DOs (27%). No statistically significant difference was found in pass rates between MDs and DOs on Part I (94.9% vs. 93.9%, P = .35) or Part II (87.8% vs. 88%, P = .83) of the ABPMR certifying examination. Analysis of mean scaled scores demonstrated higher MD scores on both Part I ( 526, SD = 31, vs. 516, SD = 67, P = .002) and Part II ( 6.73, SD = .83 vs. 6.62, SD = .77, P = .005), significant only in programs with a 90%-100% pass rate. These differences, however, were of very small magnitude and likely not meaningful from a clinical or educational perspective.
Conclusion:
This study did not find meaningful differences in performance on the ABPMR certifying examinations between MDs and DOs.
Related Concept Videos
Data Collection III
The principles to begin the physical assessment include conducting a comprehensive or problem-related history in a quiet, well-lit room, emphasizing privacy and comfort for the...
Methods of Documentation II: POMR

