ArticleJournal of ophthalmology2023
Physician Review Websites: Understanding Patient Satisfaction with Ophthalmologists Using Natural Language Processing.
Article in Journal of ophthalmology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Artificial intelligence and patient reported outcomes in ophthalmology.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2026Pooled it
- From words to action? A scoping review on automatic sentiment analysis of patient experience comments from online sources and surveys.BMJ health & care informatics · 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
- Patient Satisfaction Following Top Surgery: A RealSelf Analysis Using Advanced Natural Language Processing.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025Article
- Sex, Age, and Patient Experience in Cardiologist Reviews: A Large-Scale Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Analysis.JACC. Advances · 2024Article
- Application of sentiment and word frequency analysis of physician review sites to evaluate refractive surgery care.Advances in ophthalmology practice and researchArticle
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
Introduction: The presence and influence of physician review websites (PRW) have increased significantly in the field of medicine. This study aims to better understand determinants of patient satisfaction and the sentiment of ophthalmologists using natural language processing of Healthgrades reviews. Methods: Healthgrades is a PRW where patients submit verified reviews, containing a star rating and a narrative review, of US-based ophthalmologists. This was a quantitative observational study conducted on May 23, 2022. We identified associations between physician demographics and both the sentiment analysis scores of narrative reviews and star ratings using the Student's Results: This study examined a total of 16700 reviews of 1125 ophthalmologists. Ophthalmologists of younger age and male gender received statistically significantly higher star ratings and sentiment analysis scores; analysis of location of practice did not affect scores. Textual analysis revealed that words describing the physician's personality, such as "friendly" and "caring," increased the likelihood of reviews being positive more than descriptors of the visit's effectiveness, such as "results" and "efficient." Conclusion: Younger and male ophthalmologists received higher star ratings and sentiment analysis scores. Additionally, results indicated that words describing the ophthalmologist's pleasant personality and the visit's effectiveness most positively impacted a review, whereas descriptors of a wait or an unpleasant personality most negatively impacted a review.
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.