Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Comparison of scores achieved by foreign medical graduates in the National Evaluation for Medical Residency (ENARM) in Mexico
  1. Alexela Nerey Mendoza-Aguilar1,
  2. Shirley Yoselin Salazar-Ruiz1,
  3. Lino Eduardo Cardiel-Marmolejo2,
  4. Ernesto Roldan-Valadez1,3
  1. 1 Directorate of Research, Hospital General de Mexico Dr Eduardo Liceaga, Ciudad de Mexico, Mexico
  2. 2 Department of Education, Hospital General de Mexico Dr Eduardo Liceaga, Ciudad de Mexico, Mexico
  3. 3 Radiology, Sechenov University Faculty of Medicine, Moskva, Russian Federation
  1. Correspondence to Dr Ernesto Roldan-Valadez, Directorate of Research, Hospital General de Mexico Dr Eduardo Liceaga, Ciudad de Mexico 06726, Mexico; ernest.roldan{at}usa.net

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Similar to the United States Medical Licensing Examination steps used in the USA, Mexico has the National Evaluation for Medical Residency Applicants (ENARM, Examen Nacional de Aspirantes a Residencias Medicas), the scores achieved in these assessments represent the entrance door to a specialisation course endorsed by an accredited university. This letter aims to discuss the usefulness of ENARM exam scores obtained by foreign medical graduates (FMG).

Logistics of the ENARM exam

The reports of 7 consecutive years (2012–2018) of ENARM scores, were issued by the Interinstitutional Commission for Human Resources Training for Health (Comisión Interinstitucional para la Formación de Recursos Humanos para la Salud) a department of the Undersecretariat of Innovation and Quality of the Mexican Ministry of Health.1 The ENARM exam uses a minimum and maximum scores to show the performance in 27 medical …

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Contributors All authors contributed equally in the design, drafting and acceptance of the final version of the manuscript.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.