ArticleWorld journal of otorhinolaryngology - head and neck surgery2024
Assessment of laryngologists' ratings on physician review websites.
Article in World journal of otorhinolaryngology - head and neck surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Considering the potential unintended consequences of RateMDs: an exploratory study in one specialty.Canadian medical education journal · 2025Article
- Assessment of laryngologists' ratings on physician review websites.World journal of otorhinolaryngology - head and neck surgery · 2024Article
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
Abstract
Objective: To assess and characterize online ratings and comments on laryngologists and determine factors that correlate with higher ratings. Methods: All the American Laryngological Association (ALA) members were queried across several online platforms. Ratings were normalized for comparison on a five-point Likert scale. Ratings were categorized based on context and for positive/negative aspects. Results: Of the 331 ALA members, 256 (77%) were rated on at least one online platform. Across all platforms, the average overall rating was 4.39 ± 0.61 (range: 1.00-5.00). Specific positive ratings including "bedside manners," "diagnostic accuracy," "adequate time spent with patient," "appropriate follow-up," and "physician timeliness" had significant positive correlations to overall ratings, by Pearson's correlation ( Conclusion: Online ratings and comments for laryngologists are significantly influenced by patient perceptions of bedside manner, physician competence, and time spent with the patient.
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.