ArticleAnnals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches2025
The Association Between Online Surgeon Ratings and Patients' Postoperative Outcomes in the United States.
Article in Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches, 2025. 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To determine whether ratings are associated with postoperative outcomes. Background: Online ratings by patients or inclusion on lists of exceptional physicians are publicly available. Methods: In this retrospective study, Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries 65 to 99 years old undergoing one of 14 major (elective/emergent) surgeries in the United States between 2016 and 2019 were analyzed. Data were analyzed from September 2023 to March 2024. Using computational methods to extract surgeon ratings from the three highest-volume publicly available patient-initiated and peer-nominated rating platforms. The exposure of interest was ratings (0-4, 4-4.49, ≥ 4.5) on patient-initiated platforms and "Top Doctor" status on the peer-nominated platform. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included 30-day complications, readmission, failure to rescue, and hospital length of stay. Using linear probability models, we controlled for patient, surgeon, and hospital factors to examine associations between ratings and outcomes. Results: We identified 2,690,315 patients operated on by 57,008 surgeons. Patient-initiated ratings were not consistently associated with 30-day mortality but were significantly associated with lower mortality among those treated by surgeons rated 4 to 4.49 on Platform B [adjusted risk difference (ARD), -0.06 % (95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.11 to -0.01)]. Patients treated by "Top Doctor" surgeons through peer-nomination had lower 30-day mortality ARD, -0.14 % (95% CI = -0.19 to -0.09). Surgeons with higher patient-initiated ratings had lower rates of 30-day complications and readmissions, while "Top Doctors" experienced lower rates of failure to rescue. Conclusions: Patient-initiated and peer-nominated ratings were associated with complications and readmission; mortality and failure to rescue, respectively, suggesting they capture different aspects of surgical care.
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.