ArticleClinical autonomic research : official journal of the Clinical Autonomic Research Society2020
Autonomic medical practice viewed through the lens of physician-rating websites.
Article in Clinical autonomic research : official journal of the Clinical Autonomic Research Society, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo survey online patient ratings of physicians practicing autonomic medicine.
methodsOnline patient review scores of US physician members of the American Autonomic Society were compared to scores of US physicians in general and to indices of professional expertise.
resultsThe 68 autonomic physicians who had been rated scored 3.80 ± 0.82 on a composite five-star scale, in which 5 was the most favorable score, as compared to 3.84 ± 0.98 for all US physicians (no significant difference, p = 0.8). Scores correlated inversely with autonomic physicians' number of scientific publications (p = 0.01), h-index (p = 0.01), and m-index (p = 0.0004). Scores of diplomates of the United Council for Neurologic Subspecialties certified in autonomic disorders or who were ranked in the top 1% of US physicians by Castle Connolly had scores comparable to those of other autonomic physicians. Scores did not correlate with physician gender, number of reviews, or years in practice.
conclusionA quality patient experience, accurate diagnosis, and appropriate treatment are goals shared by patients and autonomic specialists. In this study, patient reviews of autonomic physicians were comparable to those of physicians across specialties. Metrics of greater autonomic expertise were associated with equal or lower patient satisfaction scores. In conclusion, compiled subjective reviews are a useful but incomplete indicator of autonomic physician quality and expertise. An ideal profile would combine clinical and nonclinical indicators of professional competence. Reliable information is needed to empower autonomic patients to make truly informed healthcare choices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31953615What 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.