Talk:Comparison of MD and DO in the United States/Archive 2

Article Merger Proposal
This article covers most of the same topics as Osteopathic medicine in the United States. I suggest it be merged into that article. I found that article first (via Osteopathy) when I used Wikipedia to learn more about a doctor my Dad is using who has a D.O. instead of an M.D. (I am not a doctor and had no prior knowledge of D.O.s, nor of the contentious history above.) -Bingoeleven (talk) 14:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * To give some background, most of the info in the "comparison" article was originally in the articlesallopathic medicine and osteopathic medicine in the United States, but the amount of information gathered overburdened both those articles. A third article comparing the two was created as something of a compromise. There is a great deal of published material and commentary on the comparison topic.  I agree that the article is not the strongest article on WP, but with some TLC it could be much better.  These topics, allopathic v osteopathic, MDs v DOs, etc are so poorly understood, hence their necessity.  They also tend to generate instant controversy here on WP, hence the somewhat apologetic tone.  Bryan Hopping  T  08:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Disagree, if the two articles are extremely similar than that reflects a fault of Wikipedia and nothing else. This comparison page seems to me to be a distinct topic and worthy of its own well-written page.Ds2207 (talk) 01:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Applicant aptitude indicators
This should be changed to Student aptitude indicators, instead of Applicant aptitude indicators since the data quoted is reflecting matriculants, not applicants. I have given percentile ranks by MCAT scores since nobody understands what a 31 or a 25 is outside of medicine. Please do not remove my references. As a side note, right now this page feels biased towards D.O.'s. The residency match chart is especially misleading, putting MD students in small text in the graphic while DO students stand out. It needs to be more honest and neutral. Cellmass (talk) 17:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

"In general, Osteopathic Medical students have a pass rate less than that of their MD counterparts (81% vs 93%)[29] on the United States Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE), as well as a failure rate more than 3 times as high.[28]  Among DO graduates who take Step 3 of the USMLE exam, however, pass rates for first-time takers are identical (95%) to those of first-time takers who are MD graduates.[30]. Osteopathic students who do not wish to apply into MD-associated residency programs are not required to take the USMLE and instead take the three-part Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensure Examination (COMLEX) that is sponsored by the National Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners (NBOME) and which is a prerequisite for DO-associated residency programs, which are available in almost every specialty of medicine and surgery. Furthermore, the same study notes that "despite correlations between MCAT and Step 1 licensing exams, correlations between the latter and clinical performance are weak. Performance as a physician correlates better with proficiency in the humanities and with personal characteristics such as motivation, conscientiousness, integrity, empathy, and a robust psychological constitution."[28] The author notes that the "better performance [of Osteopathic students] on their own National Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners (NBOME) exam has been attributed to its greater emphasis on clinical context."[28]"

I am deleting all of this. First of all, it makes sense that DO students wouldn't pass the USMLE at as high a rate as MD students because they don't study for it; they study for COMLEX first and USMLE (if they want to) second. Second of all, there is no data on MD students taking COMLEX so it is not a fair comparison to say that DO students fail the USMLE three times as much. I don't know where that last reference came from - again, no MD students take COMLEX. Third, Step 3 is much easier than Step 1 so comparing the two exams is invalid. This edit should take out a lot of unnecessary information. Cellmass (talk) 23:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You can remove well sourced info just because you don't like it or think it wrong. Please give a policy reason for removal or propose a rewrite. Thanks, Verbal chat  08:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

please fix the name
The article should be called "Comparison of MDs and DOs in the United States" or something else that is grammatically correct. — Reinyday, 20:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the article name should be changed to "Defense of the DO in comparison to the MD," personally. The entire article focuses on how DOs are essentially the same...except for the disparities in applicant and student scoring on exams, their eligibility for training programs, their international status, etc. Everything that is an actual difference between these two degrees is immediately followed up with a "but..." detailing how much more humanities oriented DOs are in practice and here's a study that equates this to better doctoring. Come on. Could this article be written from a more skewed perspective? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.100.102 (talk) 14:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed article merge
Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. NW ( Talk ) 16:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality Dispute Resolved?
Are the neutrality disputes in this article resolved or not? If they are, then we should remove the neutrality dispute tag. Additionally, has the issue of whether or not to merge this article with osteopathic medicine in the United States been resolved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorK88 (talk • contribs) 06:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

In general, should an encyclopedia have articles which compare two things?
I see we have lots and lots of "Comparison of X" articles but I have only found one so far, Comparison of C Sharp and Java, that compares two things. And it has been tagged as containing OR since 2007. I'm also thinking the title is not encyclopedic because the subject "Comparison of MD and DO in the United States" is not notable. I see we have Osteopathic medicine in the United States up to GA status. I'm glad. But why does should this article exist? Sorry to those who have put hard work in, but I just don't get it. It seems we could all produce better content for readers by improving articles that are notable. HIV/AIDS, for example, is in need of a good article reviewer. The encyclopedia could use your energy and effort. Please help! But here? Biosthmors (talk) 22:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The people I would ask would either be user: Hopping or user: Scottalter since if you look in the article's view history archives in the earliest section they seem to be the people who established this article. I could not tell you what was on either one of their minds when making this article. This point was recently brought up indirectly with the observation that there is certainly a degree of redundancy occurring in some of these articles and I'm sure this is pervasive in wikipedia for broader subjects. Regarding what to do from here...couldn't tell you. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 00:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, the "does" was rhetorical. I don't know why it should exist. It seems like any relevant content could be merged into Osteopathic medicine in the United States. Biosthmors (talk) 00:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I have no idea how an editor goes about doing that but it sounds like an idea. I don't know the proper channels to go through to get something like that authorized either but I'm sure you do. If so, perhaps you should take the necessary steps to see if you can get this article merged with the Osteopathic Medicine in the United States article. I don't think the community would have any major objections to a merger like this considering the extent of overlap between the two articles. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * An alternate way is to just improve the other article and not go through the bureaucratic process of merging until the other article is sufficiently improved. Auchansa (talk) 02:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is Biosthmors' point, what I think he's saying is that this particular article is unnecessary, or to be more accurate redundant, since the article Osteopathic Medicine in the United States shares a great deal of overlapping content. It may be more effective to further improve that article to feature status and have all the information needed in fewer articles than repeated information in many. I don't think Bio is necessarily commenting on the current quality of this particular article itself. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds like Auchanasa is suggesting we just manually transfer the content of this article over to the osteopathic med in the US article until we've moved everything that's important. Then we could just have this article deleted, which may be easier (less bureaucracy) than achieving an official merger. Rytyho usa (talk) 06:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh I see, I misunderstood what Auchansa was saying. Well, I personally have no experience with this particular aspect of bureaucracy but if you do, then by all means go for it. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We can let this discussion go for at least a week or so. If and when consensus develops we can then perform a merge according to Merging. Biosthmors (talk) 07:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Merging seems like a great idea. AIR corn (talk) 22:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This article can be salvaged. It could provide more information than the osteopathic article has.  For example, it could discuss MDs.  It may be inappropriate to add too much bulk about MDs to that article.  Auchansa (talk) 02:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Enyclopedias (or Wikipedia) do not make a practice of hosting such articles. Most of what I see here seems like it belongs at either Osteopathy or Osteopathic medicine in the United States. Given that DOs are a less-common physician, I see no reason why editors would object to comparing them to MDs in either article. What core text definitely belongs to stay in this (and only this) article? Biosthmors (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with you Biosthmors. I think it would be better to consolidate it into the Osteopathic Medicine in the United States article. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So, is this merger happening or what? I'm pretty sure we've hit our one week mark and then some. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. As there appears to be no active party willing to make an argument against the merge, I plan on scrutinizing the article and the merge target to see if there is anything I'm missing. I may get sidetracked with other things I'm working on here so another note or message on my talk page may be helpful, thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Here are some potential facts that may be useful:

The first medical school in the United States was the College of Philadelphia (now the University of Pennsylvania), which was established in 1765.[4] Medical schools in the United States originally conferred the Bachelor of Medicine. In 1767, King's College of Medicine (now known as the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons) in New York was the first American University to grant the M.D. degree[5] instead of the Bachelor of Medicine.

Frontier physician Andrew Taylor Still, M.D., DO, founded osteopathic medicine in 1892 as a radical protest against the turn-of-the-century medical system. A.T. Still believed that the conventional medical system lacked credible efficacy, was morally corrupt, and treated effects rather than causes of disease.[6] At that time in the United States, traditional medicine used medications, surgery, and other therapeutic regimens that often caused more harm than good. Some of the medicines commonly given to patients included arsenic, castor oil, whiskey, and opium. Additionally, unsanitary surgical practices often resulted in more deaths than cures.[7] At the end of the 19th century, the relationship between the osteopathic and medical professions was often "bitterly contentious"[8]

The scope of osteopathic medicine, which originally only included manual medicine, expanded in 1951 to include family practice.[11] In 1971, the scope expanded again to encompass full-service medical care, including multiple specialties.[11]

A 2010 survey of students applying to both U.S. M.D. and D.O schools found that 35% were only admitted to a DO school, 11% were only admitted to an M.D. school, 26% were admitted to both, while the remaining 52% were not admitted to any schools.[19] <<>>>

Michigan State University and the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey are the only universities that have both M.D. and D.O. accredited programs.[37]

Some authors note the differences in average GPA and MCAT scores of those who matriculate at D.O. schools versus those who matriculate at M.D. schools within the United States. In 2011, the average MCAT and GPA for students entering U.S.-based M.D. programs were 31.1 and 3.67,[46] respectively, and 26.51 and 3.50 for D.O. matriculants,[47] although the gap has been getting smaller every year.[48] As many as one out of every three students matriculating at a D.O. medical school has been rejected by M.D. programs;[49]

In the United States, ACGME-accredited residency training programs have been generally considered more prestigious ... tend to be at large academic medical centers.[73]


 * One thing not mentioned in the article is that DOs have a hard time getting into the more prestigious residency programs as well as the more competitive specialties (ophthalmology and ENT????). If DO schools granted MD degrees, this would probably disappear but DO schools might have trouble getting accreditation, particularly the smaller ones with no large academic teaching hospital.  Good luck Auchansa (talk) 02:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Your bias is showing through again. DOs do get into "prestigious residencies" and get into opth and ENT although possibly at lower rates, I would need to see data. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not say that they are prohibited from entering competitive fields. Once a DO told me that some fields are so competitive that very few (but not none) DO can get into.  Either that DO was lying, which I doubt, or there is some truth to it.  However, maybe few people want to write a newspaper article to include that fact so there is a lack of reliable sources mentioning this.  Of course, it could be, but unlikely, that DO's don't want to get into ophthalmology and ENT.  This is why a comparison article is difficult to write. Auchansa (talk) 04:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * How might the copy-paste job above be useful? I don't understand how it was meant to connect to the discussion. Biosthmors (talk) 19:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The excerpts that I listed are, in my opinion, the most important facts that might be useful in an osteopathic medicine article. Auchansa (talk) 04:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not very familiar with the process of merging articles. but after a quick look over the wiki pages for merging articles, it looks like it's done manually (non-automatic process), and there is a formal process of tagging the articles for discussion. While I don't object to a the idea of a merger between these two articles, I might suggest that we go about it the proper way (WP:MERGEPROP). Beyond that, I might have some time to work on the merger (assuming it happens, which it looks like it will), although only on an inconsistent basis.
 * I also don't see the purpose of the copy-paste job. None of that seems to much matter now, at least not for this thread, since this article will never be a good article, and won't even be an article at all for much longer. We can talk about who gets the best residencies on the Osteopathic medicine in the United States talk page, or even on a different thread on this page, until the merger happens.Rytyho usa (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose a merger. This is an article that specifically focuses on the comparison of two phenomenon.  There is a great deal of published literature out there studying this comparison.  A simple PubMed search reveals this. PubMed. This article should be expanded with this information, not merged into an already lengthy article.  Bryan Hopping  T  13:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * See the original point Hopping. The original point Biosthmors made is that encyclopedias are not really meant to compare two things in this manner. Though literature may exist discussing this comparison, this does not mean this cannot be a discussion within the context of the Osteopathic medicine in the United States article. This article already contains a great deal of overlap with that page and I can see the point why it isn't necessary to have this as a separate article but make it a section of the other article. I respectfully disagree with your opinion on this and support the merger.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems clear that the comparison passes the notability requirement, but should we have a comparison page anyways? It doesn't seem inherently problematic to me, since there are several other comparison articles on wikipedia.  How much does it matter that we are only comparing 2 things on this article, rather than 3 or 4?  Does an article suddenly become encyclopedic when you add a third subject to the comparison? I agree about the overlap - that's an issue.  Could we improve the article's focus to cut down on overlap?  Much of the history was taken from the Osteopathic Medicine in the US article; I was going to trim it down and focus it appropriately to compare MD and DO, but I don't want to do that if we're just going to delete this article or merge it with the other. Rytyho usa (talk) 00:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I pretty much feel that this page is redundant when considering the Osteopathic medicine in the United States page. I still don't know if this comparison page is necessary but I'm also not as familiar as others are with the notability requirements, etc. I still favor merging the article since I feel that consolidating the information on wikipedia would be a more organized, focused approach. There is already some comparison of MD and DO physicians in United States article and with expansion I think the article can do the topic justice. There's also the Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine page and this page has considerable overlap with that one as well. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There are many comparison articles on WP. Some much shorter than this one: Characteristics_of_common_wasps_and_bees, Comparison of train and tram tracks, Comparison of Star Trek and Star Wars.  In fact there's a whole category, Category:Comparisons.  As far as the redundancy/overlap goes, there are many articles with significant redundancy, see HIV/AIDS v Management of HIV/AIDS v  HIV (and many others.)  The problem is an article can get too long, as is already the case with "Osteopathic med in the US."  Adding this info back into that article, would make for one very long section, and would further weigh that article down.  This actually was once the case, and the decision to start a separate article was made, and to encourage more discussion of the obviously notable topic (the comparison) in this article.  The key is to expand this article, and to refer to it in the Osteopathic medicine article when appropriate so readers can find it. Bryan Hopping  T  02:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Redundancy takes precedence over an article being too lengthy in my view. Brevity is important, no doubt, but that seems like more of a stylistic aspect of the article. I'm not saying there aren't limits, obviously an article that is way too long will not really be accessible to readers but there are also readers who are lazy and will not bother to read articles that are of reasonable length (though there may be variations in what people deem as a reasonable length for such an article). Regardless, I think the extent of the overlap makes this article redundant enough that it does not merit being its own article and should be merged. The question really boils down to this-what does this article add to the encyclopedia that the Osteopathic medicine in the United States page does not or cannot? Also, notability of a topic can change over time so just because a topic was notable in the past does not mean it is today necessarily (I'm not saying such a comparison is or isn't, I am simply saying that past notability does not always equal present notability). Anyway, I think I have made my view on the merger clear enough and do not feel the need to repeat myself further. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the article can still be focused enough to justify keeping it. The osteopathic medicine in the united states is a bit lengthy, although I agree that's not the primary concern here.  Even though that article offers some information on how osteopathic medicine compares with M.D. medicine, it is limited and some amount of overlap with this article is unavoidable.  The point is, I think excessive overlap or redundancy can (and should) be minimized.  It looks like the article was proposed for deletion a while back, much of the conversation then was similar to our current discussion.  Check it out: Articles for deletion/Comparison of MD and DO in the United States. Anyone else have input on the issue of redundancy? Rytyho usa (talk) 23:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * One suggestion: Stick to the topic.  Sections have been added to this article that are off-topic.  Almost the entire "History" section simply repeats information presented in the OMUS article.  A good rule of thumb for this article: If the statement is not directly comparing osteopathic/allopathic med, it does not belong in this article, and should be removed.   Bryan Hopping  T  13:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Biosthmors (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I took out a chunk. Biosthmors (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Good edit. A significant improvement. Bryan Hopping  T  19:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Professional advantages
The "professional advantages" section is unfocused, mistitled, and feels like WP:OR & WP:WEASEL to me. Bryan Hopping T  14:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree - it needs work. I moved some of the info about residencies to the sections about residencies, because it seems more relevant to that topic.Rytyho usa (talk) 07:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * New source possiblity: US News World Report. Bryan Hopping  T  17:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Academic requirements
Why shouldn't we mention lower entrance academic requirements in the lead? Biosthmors (talk) 20:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The statement that the entrance requirements are lower in osteopathic medical schools compared to MD schools strikes me as misleading, even inaccurate. Having different entrance exam scores or GPA statistics is different from having lower requirements.  Requirements are required, and those include a specific number of college-level biology, chemistry, and physics courses, completing the MCAT exam, submitting personal statement essays, letters of recommendation, etc. On that front, M.D. schools and D.O. schools have the same requirements.  Even if a school or a group of schools has a higher average MCAT scores, it doesn't necessarily mean they have higher entrance requirements.Rytyho usa (talk) 22:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's also a small difference and one that is shrinking annually.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know how one would quantify "small difference" but it would necessitate talking statistics, I think. For the 2010 MCAT, a 31 is the 79.9–84.4 percentile, whereas a 26/27 is the 51–63 percentile. My inclusion to the lead was reverted. Why isn't this significant enough for the lead? Biosthmors (talk) 18:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * U.S. News and World report sure makes a big deal out of average MCAT and GPA scores when they compare medical schools. Biosthmors (talk) 18:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The article discusses many differences between allopathic and osteopathic medicine. There is no source citing MCAT scores of pre-med students as the "key difference" between the two professions, thus making it worthy of discussion in the lead. Certainly, the pre-med statistics are worth mentioning, as they are in the article, but there is no reason to place them with such prominence.  This is not a US News & World Report Ranking List.  This is an encyclopedia.   Bryan Hopping  T  02:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * How is that a criterion according to WP:LEAD? We could easily have two, and potentially three paragraphs. If the lead were two paragraphs would you support it? Three? Biosthmors (talk) 03:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * From WP:LEAD, "The first paragraph should define the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being overly specific." You asking me if I would support "it."  I would support discussing how to improve the lead, with specific language. Bryan Hopping  T  14:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This is "it", which you reverted. Are you universally opposed to this ever being in the lead, even if the lead were two or three paragraphs long? I think that is a fair question. Why would I spend time summarizing the entire article only to hear "no I still don't like it"? Biosthmors (talk) 17:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see how "this" one comparison is significant enough to be specifically mentioned in the lead to an article comparing two professions. But I can imagine a scenario where the article focused more on osteopathic/allopathic education, and in that case I suppose a general mention of difference in the average college academic schools and premedical testing scores might be warranted. However, I see more relevance to factors/comparisons of MD/DO once they actually are involved in medicine.  Looking specifically at comparisons of undergrads, BEFORE they even attend medical school seems like overreaching to me, but that's really just my personal opinion.  What is not my personal opinion, are the numerous studies comparisons one can find on this topic on PubMed and other sources  & .  I suggest examining the sources to guide our analysis here.  Bryan Hopping  T  19:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * To answer your earlier question about defining/quantifying a "small difference" it's true that I don't have an exact definition but 3.50 and 3.67 seem pretty close to me. That point aside, the difference between the MD and DO statistics is diminishing each year which is really the key point I was trying to get across. I also feel this difference already has been given sufficient attention in the student aptitude indicators section in the article. In a few years the last remaining bit of difference between the admissions statistics will most likely disappear (my own opinion/prediction) and it won't even be important to have the student aptitude indicators section at all. Just something to think about. Another thing to consider is to wait for data from this current year (class of 2016) to see if the gap closes more, stays the same, widens, etc. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Debt / finances
How bout a section comparing med school finances? This is a great source comparing the two: Medical students still burdened by high debt loads. CAROLYNE KRUPA, AMEDNEWS.. Aug. 27, 2012. Bryan Hopping T  19:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)