ArticleCanadian medical education journal2025
Considering the potential unintended consequences of RateMDs: an exploratory study in one specialty.
Article in Canadian medical education journal, 2025. 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.
- Embracing the next frontier in assessment.Canadian medical education journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Websites that facilitate communication between patients regarding their experiences with individual physicians are now relatively commonplace. Given patient-generated ratings are publicly available, physicians could use these to access rarely available patient feedback. We explored the content of reviews associated with low physician ratings and consider the potential benefits and consequences of relying on this form of freely available data to support individual life-long learning. Methods: We conducted an exploratory qualitative descriptive study. We collected narrative comments associated with low numerical ratings on one physician-rating website (RateMDs) drawn from one specialty in Canada. Written reviews associated with low numerical ratings (≤2/5) for Canadian otolaryngologists were collected yielding a total of 878 comment sets that were analyzed deductively and iteratively. Results: We found that patient comments described poor performance in areas that aligned, for the most part, with the CanMEDS roles including Professional, Communicator, and Leader; specifically referring to management of the clinical environment, administrative staff, and trainees. Conclusion: While not intended for physician feedback, physicians could access patient-to-patient ratings and associated written reviews as a means to identify areas of practice improvement. However, this represents an unintended use of these websites. While speculative, access to patient-to-patient rating websites could negatively impact physician confidence or self-worth - representing a negative consequence of their use. The utilization of these data for potential self-improvement represents an unintended use of patient-to-patient ratings and so may be accompanied by unintended consequences for physicians who use these data as potential feedback, and patients who contribute to physician rating sites.
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.