ArticleCureus2024
Reviewing the Raters: A Study of Orthopedic Oncology Rating Outcomes During COVID-19.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background During the 2020 COVID outbreak, telemedicine usage rates skyrocketed. We investigated the effect of telemedicine availability and demographic factors on orthopedic oncologist ratings and review rates. We also investigated patient-reported positive and negative experiences on www.heathgrades.com to determine which physician interaction factors were more importantly perceived by patients. Methods All orthopedic oncologists (n = 141) on www.healthgrades.com were selected for review through October 2020. Information obtained included telemedicine availability, gender, age, location of practice, review rate (number of reviews per 1000 days), mean star rating, and patient-reported positive and negative physician interactions. Mean star ratings and number of ratings were compared with respect to demographic information and telemedicine availability. Mean star ratings and review rates of orthopedic oncologists offering telemedicine were compared before and after January 01, 2020. Patients perceived positive and negative physician interaction factors were reported as a frequency of pooled positive or negative interaction factors, respectively. Results There were no significant differences in mean star rating or review rate with respect to demographic factors, telemedicine availability, or telemedicine offering orthopedic oncologists before and after January 01, 2020. There were increased positive interactions of both physician independent and dependent factors and increased negative interactions of time dependent factors. Conclusion Patients reported an increased frequency of negatively perceived wait times and rushed appointments. Telemedicine availability has been previously cited as a cost-effective means of reducing wait times. Prospective investigations are needed to determine if telemedicine can be utilized as a cost-effective means of improving patient care and satisfaction.
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.