ArticleOral and maxillofacial surgery2024
Assessing reviews of academic oral and maxillofacial surgeons within the US on Healthgrades.
Article in Oral and maxillofacial surgery, 2024. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Considering the potential unintended consequences of RateMDs: an exploratory study in one specialty.Canadian medical education journal · 2025Article
- Is oral and maxillofacial surgery lagging behind other specialties on X?Oral and maxillofacial surgery · 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
7 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of the following study was to explore the patient feedback on academic oral and maxillofacial surgeons (OMSs) practicing in the United States (US) using the physician rating website (PRW) Healthgrades.com.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study on academic OMSs in the US using data from Healthgrades.com. Predictor variables included OMS characteristics or rating characteristics. The primary outcome variable was overall rating. Linear regression was used to determine independent predictors of overall rating.
resultsThe final study sample consisted of 309 academic OMSs (mean age, 56.4 years; males, 86.4%). Age group was significantly associated with overall rating (p = 0.034). Dual-degree OMSs had a higher mean overall rating than single-degree OMSs (4.26 vs. 3.98, p = 0.012). The number of ratings was also significantly associated with overall rating (p = 0.019). Upon controlling for all other variables, merely age group was independently associated with overall rating. Specifically, OMSs aged 41-55 years were associated with a higher overall rating (+0.96, p = 0.022) relative to OMSs aged >70 years.
conclusionsThe OPRs on Healthgrades.com for academic OMSs within the US are generally positive. Age was the only independent predictor for overall rating - younger OMSs (aged 41-55 years) were independently associated with a higher overall rating relative to older OMSs (aged >70 years). The new generation of younger OMSs is likely to be aware of PRWs and their implications in the growing world of online exposure.
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.