ArticleNorth American Spine Society journal2022
Characterizing negative reviews of orthopedic spine surgeons and practices.
Article in North American Spine Society journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Characterizing Negative Online Reviews in Hand Surgery.Journal of wrist surgery · 2026Article
- Beyond the Procedure: Non-Clinical Complaints and Gender Disparity Dominate One-Star Yelp Reviews of Pain Physicians.Current pain and headache reports · 2026Review
- "They Gave Me One Star?" An Analysis of Online Reviews of Hand Surgeons.Journal of hand surgery global online · 2025Article
- Article
- Large Variation in Listed Chargemaster Price for Total Joint Arthroplasty Among Top Orthopaedic Hospitals in the United States.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2023Article
- Commentary on "Characterizing negative reviews of orthopedic spine surgeons and practices".North American Spine Society journal · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Recent evidence suggests that patients prefer subjective and crowd-sourced information over data-driven or quality-based outcomes when choosing a surgeon. Online physician rating and review websites continue to increase in popularity, and over half of patients use them to research physicians. Specifically, Yelp.com is the most frequently utilized online resource by patients. Data regarding the characteristics of negative reviews for spine surgeons and practices is lacking. Methods: Orthopedic Spine surgeons and practices in 8 major US metropolitan regions were surveyed for one-star reviews on Yelp.com. The factors noted in the reviews were recorded and they were classified according to their clinical or nonclinical nature. Reviews were also subclassified into nonsurgical or surgical episodes of care. Results: A total of 6,286 Yelp reviews were discovered, 671 (10.6%) of which were rated one-star. The majority of negative reviews (76.4%) were from patients who did not report surgery by the surgeon or practice. Of all comments, 491 (77.6%) related to nonclinical complaints. The most common factors noted in negative reviews were related to bedside manner, rude or unprofessional staff, and wait time. Conclusion: Choosing a surgeon is a complex process for patients. The large majority of negative reviews were related to nonclinical issues such as poor bedside manner or rude staff and most of these were written by patients that did not undergo a surgical procedure. This may explain the large discrepancy that has been observed between quality metrics and online crowd-sourced reviews. Paying attention to these nonclinical factors may represent the most feasible and valuable targets to improve a surgeon's practice and attract future patients.
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.