Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30958276›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2019

What Do Patients Say About Doctors Online? A Systematic Review of Studies on Patient Online Reviews.

Y Alicia Hong, Chen Liang, Tiffany A Radcliff, Lisa T Wigfall, Richard L Street

Erratum issuedAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 49 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. A Taxonomy for Health Information Systems.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Assessment of laryngologists' ratings on physician review websites.World journal of otorhinolaryngology - head and neck surgery · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Y Alicia HongDepartment of Health Administration and Policy, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-1481-6495
Chen LiangArnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-9803-9880
Tiffany A RadcliffSchool of Public Health, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-4482-8056
Lisa T WigfallDepartment of Health Kinesiology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-9445-7129
Richard L StreetDepartment of Communication, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-7392-9927

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe number of patient online reviews (PORs) has grown significantly, and PORs have played an increasingly important role in patients' choice of health care providers.

objectiveThe objective of our study was to systematically review studies on PORs, summarize the major findings and study characteristics, identify literature gaps, and make recommendations for future research.

methodsA major database search was completed in January 2019. Studies were included if they (1) focused on PORs of physicians and hospitals, (2) reported qualitative or quantitative results from analysis of PORs, and (3) peer-reviewed empirical studies. Study characteristics and major findings were synthesized using predesigned tables.

resultsA total of 63 studies (69 articles) that met the above criteria were included in the review. Most studies (n=48) were conducted in the United States, including Puerto Rico, and the remaining were from Europe, Australia, and China. Earlier studies (published before 2010) used content analysis with small sample sizes; more recent studies retrieved and analyzed larger datasets using machine learning technologies. The number of PORs ranged from fewer than 200 to over 700,000. About 90% of the studies were focused on clinicians, typically specialists such as surgeons; 27% covered health care organizations, typically hospitals; and some studied both. A majority of PORs were positive and patients' comments on their providers were favorable. Although most studies were descriptive, some compared PORs with traditional surveys of patient experience and found a high degree of correlation and some compared PORs with clinical outcomes but found a low level of correlation.

conclusionsPORs contain valuable information that can generate insights into quality of care and patient-provider relationship, but it has not been systematically used for studies of health care quality. With the advancement of machine learning and data analysis tools, we anticipate more research on PORs based on testable hypotheses and rigorous analytic methods.

trial registrationInternational Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) CRD42018085057; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=85057 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/76ddvTZ1C).

Indexed as

FemaleHealth PersonnelHumansMalePhysiciansQuality of Health CareSurveys and Questionnairespatient online reviewpatient review websitessystematic review

Identifiers

PMID30958276
PMCPMC6475821

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.