ArticleJournal of patient experience2020
Analysis of Online Urologist Ratings: Are Rating Differences Associated With Subspecialty?
Article in Journal of patient experience, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Ophthalmologists' Evaluation by Physician Review Websites-Do Only Soft Skills Matter? A Cross-National Analysis of over 70,000 Patient Reviews.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patients are increasingly using online rating websites to obtain information about physicians and to provide feedback. We performed an analysis of urologist online ratings, with specific focus on the relationship between overall rating and urologist subspecialty. We conducted an analysis of urologist ratings on Healthgrades.com. Ratings were sampled across 4 US geographical regions, with focus across 3 practice types (large and small private practice, academic) and 7 urologic subspecialties. Statistical analysis was performed to assess for differences among subgroup ratings. Data were analyzed for 954 urologists with a mean age of 53 (±10) years. The median overall urologist rating was 4.0 [3.4-4.7]. Providers in an academic practice type or robotics/oncology subspecialty had statistically significantly higher ratings when compared to other practice settings or subspecialties (
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.