ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2018
Content, Quality, and Assessment Tools of Physician-Rating Websites in 12 Countries: Quantitative Analysis.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 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
- The Content and Nature of Narrative Comments on Swiss Physician Rating Websites: Analysis of 849 Comments.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Trial
- Assessing Self-Help Orientation Among German Rehabilitation Clinics: Website Content Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- The Association Between Online Surgeon Ratings and Patients' Postoperative Outcomes in the United States.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2025Article
- Acceptability of Components for a Mandatory Quality Improvement Framework: A Survey Among Swiss General Practitioners.Health services insights · 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
- How exposure to patient narratives affects stereotyped choices of primary care clinicians.PloS one · 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
- The Impact of Signals Transmission on Patients' Choice through E-Consultation Websites: An Econometric Analysis of Secondary Datasets.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Digital Footprint of Academic Vascular Surgeons in the Southern United States on Physician Rating Websites: Cross-sectional Evaluation Study.JMIR cardio · 2021Article
- Correlation of Online Physician Rating Subscores and Association With Overall Satisfaction: Observational Study of 212,933 Providers.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Observational
- Rejected Online Feedback From a Swiss Physician Rating Website Between 2008 and 2017: Analysis of 2352 Ratings.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
- Procedures performed by general practitioners and general internal medicine physicians - a comparison based on routine data from Northern Germany.BMC family practice · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWebsites on which users can rate their physician are becoming increasingly popular, but little is known about the website quality, the information content, and the tools they offer users to assess physicians. This study assesses these aspects on physician-rating websites in German- and English-speaking countries.
objectiveThe objective of this study was to collect information on websites with a physician rating or review tool in 12 countries in terms of metadata, website quality (transparency, privacy and freedom of speech of physicians and patients, check mechanisms for appropriateness and accuracy of reviews, and ease of page navigation), professional information about the physician, rating scales and tools, as well as traffic rank.
methodsA systematic Web search based on a set of predefined keywords was conducted on Google, Bing, and Yahoo in August 2016. A final sample of 143 physician-rating websites was analyzed and coded for metadata, quality, information content, and the physician-rating tools.
resultsThe majority of websites were registered in the United States (40/143) or Germany (25/143). The vast majority were commercially owned (120/143, 83.9%), and 69.9% (100/143) displayed some form of physician advertisement. Overall, information content (mean 9.95/25) as well as quality were low (mean 18.67/47). Websites registered in the United Kingdom obtained the highest quality scores (mean 26.50/47), followed by Australian websites (mean 21.50/47). In terms of rating tools, physician-rating websites were most frequently asking users to score overall performance, punctuality, or wait time in practice.
conclusionsThis study evidences that websites that provide physician rating should improve and communicate their quality standards, especially in terms of physician and user protection, as well as transparency. In addition, given that quality standards on physician-rating websites are low overall, the development of transparent guidelines is required. Furthermore, attention should be paid to the financial goals that the majority of physician-rating websites, especially the ones that are commercially owned, pursue.
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.