ArticleRisk management and healthcare policy2019
Online physician reviews: is there a place for them?
Article in Risk management and healthcare policy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 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
- Beyond the Procedure: Non-Clinical Complaints and Gender Disparity Dominate One-Star Yelp Reviews of Pain Physicians.Current pain and headache reports · 2026Review
- The Impact of Patient-Physician Racial and Gender Concordance on Patient Satisfaction with Outpatient Clinic Visits.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2024Article
- Classification of Patients' Judgments of Their Physicians in Web-Based Written Reviews Using Natural Language Processing: Algorithm Development and Validation.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Sex, Age, and Patient Experience in Cardiologist Reviews: A Large-Scale Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Analysis.JACC. Advances · 2024Article
- Article
- Assessment of laryngologists' ratings on physician review websites.World journal of otorhinolaryngology - head and neck surgery · 2024Article
- What Makes a 5-Star Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Surgeon? An Analysis of Positive Online Patient Reviews.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2023Article
- The Use of Web-Based Patient Reviews to Assess Medical Oncologists' Competency: Mixed Methods Sequential Explanatory Study.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- Characterizing negative reviews of orthopedic spine surgeons and practices.North American Spine Society journal · 2022Article
- Article
- The Majority of Complaints About Orthopedic Sports Surgeons on Yelp Are Nonclinical.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2021Article
- Psychiatry in the Digital Age: A Blessing or a Curse?International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Review
- Autonomic medical practice viewed through the lens of physician-rating websites.Clinical autonomic research : official journal of the Clinical Autonomic Research Society · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Web-based physician ratings are increasingly popular but imperfect proxies for clinical competence. Yet they provide valuable information to patients and providers when taken in proper context. Providers need to embrace the reviews and use them to enact positive change in order to improve the quality of our patients' experience. Patients need to realize the limitations of online ratings, particularly with smaller sample size and be discerning about the reasons behind the review.
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.