ArticleCureus2018
What Do Patients Think About Their Radiation Oncologists? An Assessment of Online Patient Reviews on Healthgrades.
Article in Cureus, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Article
- Assessing reviews of academic oral and maxillofacial surgeons within the US on Healthgrades.Oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2024Article
- Visibility Versus Privacy of Physicians in the Age of Social Media.Interactive journal of medical research · 2021Article
- Digital Footprint of Academic Vascular Surgeons in the Southern United States on Physician Rating Websites: Cross-sectional Evaluation Study.JMIR cardio · 2021Article
- Comparing Precision Machine Learning With Consumer, Quality, and Volume Metrics for Ranking Orthopedic Surgery Hospitals: Retrospective Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
- Investigation of Radiation Oncologists' Awareness of Online Reputation Management.JMIR cancer · 2019Article
- How Do Patients Rate Their Radiation Oncologists in the Modern Era: An Analysis of Vitals.com.Cureus · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction An increasing number of patients search for their physicians online. Many hospital systems utilize Press-Ganey studies as internal tools to analyze patient satisfaction, but independent third-party websites have a large presence online. Patients' trust in these third-party sites may occur despite a low number of reviews and a lack of validity of patients' entries. Healthgrades.com has been shown as the most popular site to appear on Google searches for radiation oncologists (ROs) in the United States (US). The aim of this study was to analyze patient satisfaction scores and the factors that influence those scores for American ROs on Healthgrades. Methods The physician ratings website Healthgrades was manually queried to obtain reviews from all Medicare-participating ROs with reviews (
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.