ArticleJACC. Advances2024
Sex, Age, and Patient Experience in Cardiologist Reviews: A Large-Scale Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Analysis.
Article in JACC. Advances, 2024. 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.
- Mediating Factors and Well-Being Differences by Gender Among Academic Physicians.JAMA network open · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Patients are increasingly using online reviews to evaluate cardiologists. Online reviews can provide insights into factors driving patient satisfaction. Little is known about the effects of age and sex on the patient experience with cardiologists. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to apply natural language processing techniques on online reviews to determine the factors underlying positive and negative patient experiences and the effects of age and sex on the patient experience with cardiologists. Methods: Mixed effects logistic regression and sentiment analysis were applied to online cardiologist reviews from Healthgrades between 1998 and 2023. The results were then analyzed by sex and age to show trends with respect to rating statistics, sentiment analysis, and frequency of 2-word phrases. Results: There were 100,334 online reviews of 9,461 cardiologists. Female cardiologists received lower average ratings compared to male cardiologists and were 34.5% less likely to receive a positive review (OR: 0.655; 95% CI: 0.481-0.893; Conclusions: Positive reviews were associated with cardiologists being comprehensive and patients feeling a sense of trust in the relationship. There was a difference in ratings based on age and sex with female and older cardiologists receiving lower ratings.
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.