ArticleCureus2018
How Do Patients Rate Their Radiation Oncologists in the Modern Era: An Analysis of Vitals.com.
Article in Cureus, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- What Do Patients Say About Doctors Online? A Systematic Review of Studies on Patient Online Reviews.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Pooled it
- Article
- The role of cesium-131 brachytherapy in brain tumors: a scoping review of the literature and ongoing clinical trials.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2022Article
- A summary of eye-related visits to a tertiary emergency department.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- A Comparison of Online Physician Ratings and Internal Patient-Submitted Ratings from a Large Healthcare System.Journal of general internal medicine · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction The popularity of online physician rating websites has risen substantially. These third-party sites have the potential to significantly influence patients' perception of their healthcare providers. The purpose of this study was to evaluate online ratings of U.S. radiation oncologists (ROs) on Vitals.com, one of the most popular physician rating websites, and the variables that most significantly affect patients' overall rating (OR) of their ROs. Methods The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Physician Comparable Downloadable File was analyzed to obtain data on all self-identified ROs in the U.S. and Puerto Rico. Patient Review Satisfaction Scores (PRSS) that ranged from one (poor) to five (excellent) for the following variables were recorded: OR, accurate diagnosis, spending appropriate time with patients, ease of appointment, courteous staff, bedside manner, follow-up after visit, promptness, and wait time. Associations among these factors were assessed. Results Of 4,443 self-identifying Medicare-accepting ROs, 1,797 (40.4%) ROs who had at least one OR rating and at least one written comment were included in this study. The ROs' mean OR was 4.34 ± 0.2 (median 4; 30% received a score of 5; 78% received a score greater than 4). OR was found to have a strong correlation with accuracy of diagnosis (
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.