ArticleJournal of wrist surgery2026
Characterizing Negative Online Reviews in Hand Surgery.
Article in Journal of wrist surgery, 2026. 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: Physician review websites are easily accessible resources for patients seeking care. The purpose of our study is to characterize the negative reviews of hand surgeons found on popular review sites using a random sample of members from the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) directory. Materials and Methods: We randomly selected 500 hand surgeons from the AAOS Find an Orthopaedist database and searched for reviews on three websites: Healthgrades.com, Vitals.com, and RateMDs.com. All one-star written reviews were categorized based on the primary complaint in the review. These complaints were analyzed to determine the factors most frequently associated with negative reviews. Results: A total of 1,848 written one-star reviews were included in the analysis. Of all included reviews, 18.1% directly referenced having surgery with the reviewed surgeon while 81.9% did not. Nonclinical complaints comprised the majority of reviews (73.6%). Of the nonclinical complaints, bedside manner was the most frequently cited complaint (53.8%), while wait time (11.0%), time spent with the provider (10.4%), and staff complaints (8.5%) were the next most common. Among the clinical complaints, unfavorable surgical outcomes (40.4%) were most common, while disagreement with or unclear treatment plans (23.6%), misdiagnosis (12.3%), and uncontrolled pain (11.9%) were next. Conclusion: While there are several potential sources of patient dissatisfaction, we have demonstrated that nonclinical aspects of care, such as surgeon bedside manner and office wait times, are disproportionately cited as reasons for negative ratings on physician review websites. It is essential for hand surgeons to understand the motivations behind the reviews that they receive.
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.