ReviewJournal of medical Internet research2017
Developments in the Frequency of Ratings and Evaluation Tendencies: A Review of German Physician Rating Websites.
Review in Journal of medical Internet research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Data Quality Issues With Physician-Rating Websites: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Pooled it
- Online reviews in primary care - a mimicry indicator of quality? A comparative analysis across urban and rural regions in Germany.Research in health services & regions · 2025Article
- The Influence of Paid Memberships on Physician Rating Websites With the Example of the German Portal Jameda: Descriptive Cross-sectional Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- Awareness of and interaction with physician rating websites: A cross-sectional study in Austria.PloS one · 2022Article
- One Decade of Online Patient Feedback: Longitudinal Analysis of Data From a German Physician Rating Website.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
- Perceptual Gaps Between Clinicians and Technologists on Health Information Technology-Related Errors in Hospitals: Observational Study.JMIR human factors · 2021Article
- Rejected Online Feedback From a Swiss Physician Rating Website Between 2008 and 2017: Analysis of 2352 Ratings.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
- Using Nonexpert Online Reports to Enhance Expert Knowledge About Causes of Death in Dental Offices Reported in Scientific Publications: Qualitative and Quantitative Content Analysis and Search Engine Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
- Influence of Health Literacy on Effects of Patient Rating Websites: Survey Study Using a Hypothetical Situation and Fictitious Doctors.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
- What Patients Value in Physicians: Analyzing Drivers of Patient Satisfaction Using Physician-Rating Website Data.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
- Quantitative Ratings and Narrative Comments on Swiss Physician Rating Websites: Frequency Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Article
- When Similarity Beats Expertise-Differential Effects of Patient and Expert Ratings on Physician Choice: Field and Experimental Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Article
- Why are so few patients rating their physicians on German physician rating websites? A qualitative study.BMC health services research · 2018Article
- How Online Quality Ratings Influence Patients' Choice of Medical Providers: Controlled Experimental Survey Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2018Article
- Scope, Breadth, and Differences in Online Physician Ratings Related to Geography, Specialty, and Year: Observational Retrospective Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPhysician rating websites (PRWs) have been developed to allow all patients to rate, comment, and discuss physicians' quality online as a source of information for others searching for a physician. At the beginning of 2010, a sample of 298 randomly selected physicians from the physician associations in Hamburg and Thuringia were searched for on 6 German PRWs to examine the frequency of ratings and evaluation tendencies.
objectiveThe objective of this study was to examine (1) the number of identifiable physicians on German PRWs; (2) the number of rated physicians on German PRWs; (3) the average and maximum number of ratings per physician on German PRWs; (4) the average rating on German PRWs; (5) the website visitor ranking positions of German PRWs; and (6) how these data compare with 2010 results.
methodsA random stratified sample of 298 selected physicians from the physician associations in Hamburg and Thuringia was generated. Every selected physician was searched for on the 6 PRWs (Jameda, Imedo, Docinsider, Esando, Topmedic, and Medführer) used in the 2010 study and a PRW, Arztnavigator, launched by Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse (AOK).
resultsThe results were as follows: (1) Between 65.1% (194/298) on Imedo to 94.6% (282/298) on AOK-Arztnavigator of the physicians were identified on the selected PRWs. (2) Between 16.4% (49/298) on Esando to 83.2% (248/298) on Jameda of the sample had been rated at least once. (3) The average number of ratings per physician ranged from 1.2 (Esando) to 7.5 (AOK-Arztnavigator). The maximum number of ratings per physician ranged from 3 (Esando) to 115 (Docinsider), indicating an increase compared with the ratings of 2 to 27 in the 2010 study sample. (4) The average converted standardized rating (1=positive, 2=neutral, and 3=negative) ranged from 1.0 (Medführer) to 1.2 (Jameda and Topmedic). (5) Only Jameda (position 317) and Medführer (position 9796) were placed among the top 10,000 visited websites in Germany.
conclusionsWhereas there has been an overall increase in the number of ratings when summing up ratings from all 7 analyzed German PRWs, this represents an average addition of only 4 new ratings per physician in a year. The increase has also not been even across the PRWs, and it would be advisable for the users of PRWs to utilize a number of PRWs to ascertain the rating of any given physician. Further research is needed to identify barriers for patients to rate their physicians and to assist efforts to increase the number of ratings on PRWs to consequently improve the fairness and practical importance of PRWs.
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.