ArticleCureus2024
Categorizing Extremely Positive Five-Star Online Reviews for Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Surgeons: A Retrospective Study.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Multiple studies have emphasized the increased use of physician rating websites by patients when searching for surgeons to perform elective procedures. This study aimed to analyze the comments associated with online five-star patient reviews for orthopedic foot and ankle surgeons. Methods A retrospective analysis of five-star online reviews and corresponding comments using Vitals.com in 2024 was completed. Surgeons were included if they could be found on Vitals.com, were within a 10-mile radius of one of the top 10 largest cities in the United States, and if they had at least one review with one corresponding comment. Comments were further stratified into the following categories: good outcomes, well-controlled pain, correct diagnosis, clear plan, bedside manner/patient experience, staff compliment, wait time, nice facility, and offering a nonsurgical option. Results In a sampling of 2,425 orthopedic foot and ankle surgeons, 148 physicians (6.1%) had at least one review with one comment. Ultimately, 1,833 five-star reviews comprising 3,215 comments were included in the final analysis. Comments stratified by category revealed the most common comments being related to good outcomes (n = 940; 29.2%) and bedside manner/patient experience (n = 921; 28.6%). From the comments related to bedside manner/patient experience (p < 0.001) and presence of a clear plan (p < 0.001), a significantly higher proportion of comments in the nonoperative group was found relative to the operative group. Conversely, from the comments related to well-controlled pain (p < 0.001), a significantly higher proportion of comments in the operative group was found relative to the nonoperative group. Conclusions The most common reasons behind five-star patient comments for orthopedic foot and ankle surgeons were related to good outcomes and bedside manner/patient experience. Comments from surgical patients were most likely to include mention of well-controlled pain, whereas comments from patients who underwent nonoperative care were more likely to center on bedside manner/patient experience and presence of a clear plan.
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.