ArticleJournal of medical systems2023
Dishonest Physician Reviews: Challenging Physician Online Reviews and the Appeals Process.
Article in Journal of medical systems, 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Urologists and social media: pitfalls and perils and what to think about before hitting 'send'.BJU international · 2025Review
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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Physician reviews influence how patients seek care, but dishonest reviews can be detrimental to a physician practice. It is unclear if reviews can be challenged, and processes differ and are not readily apparent. The objective of this observational study was to determine the ability to challenge dishonest negative reviews online. Commonly used websites for physician reviews as of August 2021 were utilized: Healthgrades, Vitals, RateMDs, Zocdoc, Yelp, and Google Business. Each review platform's website was tested for leaving a physician review and process of appeal and possible removal of a negative review. The process for appeal and the steps involved in posting and appealing a review were determined, whether individuals are verified patients and criteria for verification, how physicians can respond, and the process of appealing false or defamatory reviews.Any individual can leave reviews by searching for a physician's name or practice and visiting their profile page and can then provide a rating and written review of their experience with the physician. Many require verification to prevent suspicious activity but not proof of a medical visit, allowing significant potential for inaccurate review postings. Posting a review can be done by anyone without verification of a visit. It is challenging for physicians to remove negative online reviews, as most review platforms have strict policies against. This review concludes that physicians should be aware of their online presence and the steps that can be taken to address issues to mitigate adverse effects on their practices.
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.