ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2017
Physician and Patient Views on Public Physician Rating Websites: A Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
42 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Impact of Web-Based Ratings on Patient Choice of a Primary Care Physician Versus a Specialist: Randomized Controlled Experiment.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Trial
- Article
- Characterizing Negative Online Reviews in Hand Surgery.Journal of wrist surgery · 2026Article
- Does Patient Experience Correlate With Overall Hospital Quality Ratings?Journal of patient experience · 2026Article
- Patient Online Ratings of Sports Medicine Surgeons Most Commonly Relate to Bedside Manner and Communication.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2025Article
- "They Gave Me One Star?" An Analysis of Online Reviews of Hand Surgeons.Journal of hand surgery global online · 2025Article
- Examining One-Star Reviews in Orthopaedic Hand Surgeons in Large U.S. Cities.Journal of wrist surgery · 2025Article
- Physician Gender and Patient Perceptions of Interpersonal and Technical Skills in Online Reviews.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Assessing extremely negative online patient reviews and complaints of musculoskeletal oncology surgeons in the United States: a retrospective analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2024Article
- Assessing reviews of academic oral and maxillofacial surgeons within the US on Healthgrades.Oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2024Article
- The Impact of Ambivalent Attitudes on the Helpfulness of Web-Based Reviews: Secondary Analysis of Data From a Large Physician Review Website.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Review
- Understanding online ratings of joint arthroplasty surgeons: A national cross-sectional analysis.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2023Article
- How exposure to patient narratives affects stereotyped choices of primary care clinicians.PloS one · 2023Article
- Understanding Gender Biases and Differences in Web-Based Reviews of Sanctioned Physicians Through a Machine Learning Approach: Mixed Methods Study.JMIR formative research · 2022Article
- Article
- Patient-Centered Care and Healthcare Consumerism in Online Healthcare Service Advertisements: A Positioning Analysis.Journal of patient experience · 2022Article
- Awareness of and interaction with physician rating websites: A cross-sectional study in Austria.PloS one · 2022Article
- Assessing the recognition of female orthopaedic surgeons in Castle Connolly's "America's Top Doctors" from 2000 to 2020.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2021Article
- Getting to the Bottom of Patient Experiences with Genital Gender Affirmation Surgery: A Qualitative Analysis of Online Reviews.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2021Article
- The Majority of Complaints About Orthopedic Sports Surgeons on Yelp Are Nonclinical.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNumerical ratings and narrative comments about physicians are increasingly available online. These physician rating websites include independent websites reporting crowd-sourced data from online users and health systems reporting data from their internal patient experience surveys.
objectiveTo assess patient and physician views on physician rating websites.
designCross-sectional physician (electronic) and patient (paper) surveys conducted in August 2015.
participantsEight hundred twenty-eight physicians (response rate 43%) affiliated with one of four hospitals in a large accountable care organization in eastern Massachusetts; 494 adult patients (response rate 34%) who received care in this system in May 2015. MAIN MEASURES: Use and perceptions of physician rating websites. KEY
resultsFifty-three percent of physicians and 39% of patients reported visiting a physician rating website at least once. Physicians reported higher levels of agreement with the accuracy of numerical data (53%) and narrative comments (62%) from health system patient experience surveys compared to numerical data (36%) and narrative comments (36%) on independent websites. Patients reported higher levels of agreement with trusting the accuracy of data obtained from independent websites (57%) compared to health system patient experience surveys (45%). Twenty-one percent of physicians and 51% of patients supported posting narrative comments online for all consumers. The majority (78%) of physicians believed that posting narrative comments online would increase physician job stress; smaller proportions perceived a negative effect on the physician-patient relationship (46%), health care overuse (34%), and patient-reported experiences of care (33%). Over one-fourth of patients (29%) believed that posting narrative comments would cause them to be less open.
conclusionsPhysicians and patients have different views on whether independent or health system physician rating websites are the more reliable source of information. Their views on whether such data should be shared on public websites are also discordant.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.