ArticleJMIR formative research2026
Coverage, Traits, and Geographic Distribution of Online Surgeon Reviews: Large-Scale Cross-Sectional Analysis.
Article in JMIR formative research, 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The use of online physician rating platforms has significantly increased and has been shown to influence physician selection. There are limited data on the use of these platforms for rating surgeons. Objective: In this study, we sought to assess the geographic distribution of and patterns in rating scores of surgeons in the United States. Additionally, we examined rating volumes across different surgical specialties and the association between peer-nominated and patient-initiated ratings on online rating platforms in the United States. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study by identifying 201,154 surgeons in the United States via the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System records and Doctors and Clinicians downloadable file. We assessed surgeon coverage on 3 online rating platforms and their geographic use patterns. We described the rating scores and volumes across different surgical specialties and assessed the relationship between rating platforms by comparing peer-nominated and patient-initiated online ratings. Results: A total of 78.86% (158,630/201,154) of the surgeons had ratings on at least 1 of the 3 patient-initiated websites across 11 specialties. Plastic surgeons, neurosurgeons, and orthopedic surgeons had the highest mean number of patient-initiated ratings. Surgeons with "Top Doctor" recognition from peers (23,171/201,154, 11.52%) were associated with an increased median patient-initiated rating (Healthgrades: 4.36, IQR 3.88-4.71 vs 4.20, IQR 3.64-4.64, P<.001, and r=0.09; Vitals: 4.30, IQR 4.00-4.60 vs 4.20, IQR 3.80-4.50, P<.001, and r=0.09; RateMDs: 4.20, IQR 3.80-4.50 vs 3.80, IQR 3.60-4.60, P<.001, and r=0.16). Geographic analysis indicated that 91.06% (295,816,471/324,870,510) of the US population lives in a county with a surgeon rated 10 times or more. Conclusions: Both patient-initiated and peer-nominated rating platforms have a comprehensive coverage of surgeons in the United States, but this coverage differs significantly between surgical specialties. Further work should assess how publicly available online ratings drive surgeon selection and their association with patient experience and postoperative outcomes.
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.