ArticleJournal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma2023
Understanding online ratings of joint arthroplasty surgeons: A national cross-sectional analysis.
Article in Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Coverage, Traits, and Geographic Distribution of Online Surgeon Reviews: Large-Scale Cross-Sectional Analysis.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patient reviews provide an important referral source for physicians and an opportunity to improve practice performance. This study's objective was to characterize the online reviews of hip and knee arthroplasty surgeons published by three of the industry's leading platforms. Methods: A random sample of 1000 hip and knee arthroplasty surgeons across all 50 US states (10 hip and 10 knee surgeons per state) was generated using Google Search. A total of 7842 online reviews posted for those surgeons on Healthgrades, Vitals, and Google were analyzed. A range of surgeons, affiliated hospitals, and reviewer attributes was compared to identify significant predictors of patient satisfaction. Results: The study cohort had 98.1% male surgeons with a mean age of 53.55 ± 8.94 years and mean experience of 26.43 ± 9.21 years. Younger age (p < 0.001), shorter years of experience (p < 0.001), and arthroplasty fellowship training (p < 0.001) were associated with more positive ratings. Reviewer anonymity, observed in 30.93% of all reviews, tended to correlate with more negative ratings (p < 0.001). Overall, 86.93% of patient remarks were positive, and only 74.81% of remarks centered on physician attributes. The five leading components of patient satisfaction were perceptions of physician competence (34.81%, p < 0.001), bedside manner (23.83%, p = 0.002), and communication (16.17%, p = 0.94); interactions with physician extenders (14.75%, p < 0.001); and wait time (2.73%, p < 0.001). Conclusion: While most ratings of hip and knee arthroplasty surgeons were positive, more than a quarter of reviews were either not directly related to the individual surgeons or were submitted anonymously. Caution is advised regarding overreliance on patient experience surveys as predictors of physician performance.
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.