ArticleInteractive journal of medical research2018
The Validity of Online Patient Ratings of Physicians: Analysis of Physician Peer Reviews and Patient Ratings.
Article in Interactive journal of medical research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Data Quality Issues With Physician-Rating Websites: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Pooled it
- What Do Patients Say About Doctors Online? A Systematic Review of Studies on Patient Online Reviews.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Pooled it
- Article
- Coverage, Traits, and Geographic Distribution of Online Surgeon Reviews: Large-Scale Cross-Sectional Analysis.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Factors influencing online patient-reported ratings among shoulder surgeons.JSES international · 2025Article
- The impact of social media for shoulder surgeons: a prevalence and correlation study with online and academic presence.JSES international · 2025Article
- The Impact of Social Media for Hand Surgeons: A Prevalence and Correlation Study With Online and Academic Reputations.Journal of hand surgery global online · 2025Article
- Examining the Role of Physician Characteristics in Web-Based Verified Primary Care Physician Reviews: Observational Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Observational
- Article
- The Use of Web-Based Patient Reviews to Assess Medical Oncologists' Competency: Mixed Methods Sequential Explanatory Study.JMIR formative research · 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
- Social Media in Hip Arthroscopy Is an Underused Resource That Enhances Physician Online Reputation.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2022Article
- Online Ratings of Primary Care Physicians: Comparison of Gender, Training, and Specialty.Journal of patient experience · 2021Article
- Analysis of Online Urologist Ratings: Are Rating Differences Associated With Subspecialty?Journal of patient experience · 2020Article
- Correlation of Online Physician Rating Subscores and Association With Overall Satisfaction: Observational Study of 212,933 Providers.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Observational
- Autonomic medical practice viewed through the lens of physician-rating websites.Clinical autonomic research : official journal of the Clinical Autonomic Research Society · 2020Article
- Physicians' Earnings Do Not Affect Their Online Ratings.Frontiers in public health · 2020Article
- Online physician reviews: is there a place for them?Risk management and healthcare policy · 2019Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInformation from ratings sites are increasingly informing patient decisions related to health care and the selection of physicians.
objectiveThe current study sought to determine the validity of online patient ratings of physicians through comparison with physician peer review.
methodsWe extracted 223,715 reviews of 41,104 physicians from 10 of the largest cities in the United States, including 1142 physicians listed as "America's Top Doctors" through physician peer review. Differences in mean online patient ratings were tested for physicians who were listed and those who were not.
resultsOverall, no differences were found between the online patient ratings based upon physician peer review status. However, statistical differences were found for four specialties (family medicine, allergists, internal medicine, and pediatrics), with online patient ratings significantly higher for those physicians listed as a peer-reviewed "Top Doctor" versus those who were not.
conclusionsThe results of this large-scale study indicate that while online patient ratings are consistent with physician peer review for four nonsurgical, primarily in-office specializations, patient ratings were not consistent with physician peer review for specializations like anesthesiology. This result indicates that the validity of patient ratings varies by medical specialization.
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.