SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2019
What Do Patients Say About Doctors Online? A Systematic Review of Studies on Patient Online Reviews.
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.
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
49 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Examining Different Factors in Web-Based Patients' Decision-Making Process: Systematic Review on Digital Platforms for Clinical Decision Support System.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Pooled it
- Online Communities as a Driver for Patient Empowerment: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Pooled it
- Sex differences in online ratings of healthcare professionals in Moscow: A cross-sectional study.Preventive medicine reports · 2026Article
- Article
- China's new quality productive forces in healthcare: spatial disparities, dynamic evolution, and convergence.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Coverage, Traits, and Geographic Distribution of Online Surgeon Reviews: Large-Scale Cross-Sectional Analysis.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Mapping online patient reviews onto a data-informed service-experience framework: a content analysis of tertiary hospitals in Wuxi, China.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Online reviews in primary care - a mimicry indicator of quality? A comparative analysis across urban and rural regions in Germany.Research in health services & regions · 2025Article
- Social media use among cardiothoracic surgeons: The online landscape and comparisons between subgroups.JTCVS open · 2025Article
- Physician Gender and Patient Perceptions of Interpersonal and Technical Skills in Online Reviews.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- A Taxonomy for Health Information Systems.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Review
- Assessing reviews of academic oral and maxillofacial surgeons within the US on Healthgrades.Oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2024Article
- Assessment of laryngologists' ratings on physician review websites.World journal of otorhinolaryngology - head and neck surgery · 2024Article
- Doctors ranking through heterogeneous information: The new score functions considering patients' emotional intensity.Expert systems with applications · 2023Article
- Article
- The Impact of Ambivalent Attitudes on the Helpfulness of Web-Based Reviews: Secondary Analysis of Data From a Large Physician Review Website.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Review
- The Relationship between Internet Patient Satisfaction Ratings and COVID-19 Outcomes.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- The Use of Web-Based Patient Reviews to Assess Medical Oncologists' Competency: Mixed Methods Sequential Explanatory Study.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- Web-Based Public Ratings of General Practitioners in Norway: Validation Study.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- A sentiment analysis driven method based on public and personal preferences with correlated attributes to select online doctors.Applied intelligence (Dordrecht, Netherlands) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.