Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30115610›Full record

ReviewJournal of medical Internet research2018

Developing Embedded Taxonomy and Mining Patients' Interests From Web-Based Physician Reviews: Mixed-Methods Approach.

Jia Li, Minghui Liu, Xiaojun Li, Xuan Liu, Jingfang Liu

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review 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 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Online Ratings of Urologists: Comprehensive Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Jia LiSchool of Business, East China University of Science and Technology, Shanghai, China.ORCID 0000-0002-4422-2647
Minghui LiuSchool of Business, East China University of Science and Technology, Shanghai, China.ORCID 0000-0002-7103-9098
Xiaojun LiXi'an Research Institute of Hi-Tech, Xi'an, China.ORCID 0000-0001-8638-636X
Xuan LiuSchool of Business, East China University of Science and Technology, Shanghai, China.ORCID 0000-0001-5370-937X
Jingfang LiuSchool of Management, Shanghai University, Shanghai, China.ORCID 0000-0002-6845-1268

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWeb-based physician reviews are invaluable gold mines that merit further investigation. Although many studies have explored the text information of physician reviews, very few have focused on developing a systematic topic taxonomy embedded in physician reviews. The first step toward mining physician reviews is to determine how the natural structure or dimensions is embedded in reviews. Therefore, it is relevant to develop the topic taxonomy rigorously and systematically.

objectiveThis study aims to develop a hierarchical topic taxonomy to uncover the latent structure of physician reviews and illustrate its application for mining patients' interests based on the proposed taxonomy and algorithm.

methodsData comprised 122,716 physician reviews, including reviews of 8501 doctors from a leading physician review website in China (haodf.com), collected between 2007 and 2015. Mixed methods, including a literature review, data-driven-based topic discovery, and human annotation were used to develop the physician review topic taxonomy.

resultsThe identified taxonomy included 3 domains or high-level categories and 9 subtopics or low-level categories. The physician-related domain included the categories of medical ethics, medical competence, communication skills, medical advice, and prescriptions. The patient-related domain included the categories of the patient profile, symptoms, diagnosis, and pathogenesis. The system-related domain included the categories of financing and operation process. The F-measure of the proposed classification algorithm reached 0.816 on average. Symptoms (Cohen d=1.58, Δu=0.216, t=229.75, and P<.001) are more often mentioned by patients with acute diseases, whereas communication skills (Cohen d=-0.29, Δu=-0.038, t=-42.01, and P<.001), financing (Cohen d=-0.68, Δu=-0.098, t=-99.26, and P<.001), and diagnosis and pathogenesis (Cohen d=-0.55, Δu=-0.078, t=-80.09, and P<.001) are more often mentioned by patients with chronic diseases. Patients with mild diseases were more interested in medical ethics (Cohen d=0.25, Δu 0.039, t=8.33, and P<.001), operation process (Cohen d=0.57, Δu 0.060, t=18.75, and P<.001), patient profile (Cohen d=1.19, Δu 0.132, t=39.33, and P<.001), and symptoms (Cohen d=1.91, Δu=0.274, t=62.82, and P<.001). Meanwhile, patients with serious diseases were more interested in medical competence (Cohen d=-0.99, Δu=-0.165, t=-32.58, and P<.001), medical advice and prescription (Cohen d=-0.65, Δu=-0.082, t=-21.45, and P<.001), financing (Cohen d=-0.26, Δu=-0.018, t=-8.45, and P<.001), and diagnosis and pathogenesis (Cohen d=-1.55, Δu=-0.229, t=-50.93, and P<.001).

conclusionsThis mixed-methods approach, integrating literature reviews, data-driven topic discovery, and human annotation, is an effective and rigorous way to develop a physician review topic taxonomy. The proposed algorithm based on Labeled-Latent Dirichlet Allocation can achieve impressive classification results for mining patients' interests. Furthermore, the mining results reveal marked differences in patients' interests across different disease types, socioeconomic development levels, and hospital levels.

Indexed as

ClassificationDelivery of Health CareHumansInternetPhysicianslabeled-LDAphysicianstopic modelingtopic taxonomyWeb-based review

Identifiers

PMID30115610
PMCPMC6117498

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.