Literature DB >> 29983660

Online Patient Ratings Are Not Correlated with Total Knee Replacement Surgeon-Specific Outcomes.

Samir K Trehan1, Joseph T Nguyen2, Robert Marx1, Michael B Cross1, Ting J Pan2, Aaron Daluiski1, Stephen Lyman2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Despite potential concerns regarding their validity, physician-rating websites continue to grow in number and utilization and feature prominently on major search engines, potentially affecting patient decision-making regarding physician selection. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We sought to determine whether patient ratings on public physician-rating websites correlate with surgeon-specific outcomes for high-volume total knee replacement (TKR) surgeons in New York State (NYS) from 2010 to 2012.
METHODS: Online patient ratings were compared to surgeon-specific outcomes from the Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (SPARCS) database from the NYS Department of Health. For each surgeon, we determined the infection rate, re-admission rate, and revision surgery rate within the study period, as well as the mean inpatient length of stay, for TKR from the SPARCS database. Online ratings were collected from two physician-rating websites (Vitals.com and HealthGrades.com).
RESULTS: One hundred seventy-four high-volume TKR surgeons were identified in NYS from 2010 to 2012. The mean rates of in-hospital infection, 90-day infection, 30-day re-admission, 90-day re-admission, and revision surgery were 0.25, 1.00, 4.89, 8.43, and 1.31%, respectively. The mean number of ratings for individual surgeons on HealthGrades.com and Vitals.com were 24.0 (range: 0 to 109) and 19.3 (range: 0 to 114), respectively, and mean overall ratings were 4.2 and 4.1 (out of 5) stars, respectively. As with online patient ratings of individual surgeons, variability was observed in the total adverse event rate distribution for individual surgeons. Despite sufficient variability in both online patient rating and surgeon-specific outcomes for high-volume TKR surgeons in NYS, no correlation was observed.
CONCLUSION: There was no correlation between surgeon-specific TKR outcome measures and online patient ratings. We therefore advise that patients exert caution when interpreting ratings on these websites.

Entities:  

Keywords:  online patient ratings; physician-review websites; social media; total knee replacement

Year:  2018        PMID: 29983660      PMCID: PMC6031536          DOI: 10.1007/s11420-017-9600-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  HSS J        ISSN: 1556-3316


  11 in total

1.  Public awareness, perception, and use of online physician rating sites.

Authors:  David A Hanauer; Kai Zheng; Dianne C Singer; Achamyeleh Gebremariam; Matthew M Davis
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2014-02-19       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  Evaluating popular media and internet-based hospital quality ratings for cancer surgery.

Authors:  Nicholas H Osborne; Amir A Ghaferi; Lauren H Nicholas; Justin B Dimick; Md Mph
Journal:  Arch Surg       Date:  2011-05

3.  Online Patient Ratings of Hand Surgeons.

Authors:  Samir K Trehan; Christopher J DeFrancesco; Joseph T Nguyen; Resmi A Charalel; Aaron Daluiski
Journal:  J Hand Surg Am       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 2.230

4.  Total knee arthroplasty volume, utilization, and outcomes among Medicare beneficiaries, 1991-2010.

Authors:  Peter Cram; Xin Lu; Stephen L Kates; Jasvinder A Singh; Yue Li; Brian R Wolf
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2012-09-26       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  Total knee arthroplasty outcomes in top-ranked and non-top-ranked orthopedic hospitals: an analysis of Medicare administrative data.

Authors:  Peter Cram; Xueya Cai; Xin Lu; Mary S Vaughan-Sarrazin; Benjamin J Miller
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 7.616

6.  Do popular media and internet-based hospital quality ratings identify hospitals with better cardiovascular surgery outcomes?

Authors:  Nicholas H Osborne; Lauren H Nicholas; Amir A Ghaferi; Gilbert R Upchurch; Justin B Dimick
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 6.113

7.  Parental awareness and use of online physician rating sites.

Authors:  David A Hanauer; Kai Zheng; Dianne C Singer; Achamyeleh Gebremariam; Matthew M Davis
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2014-09-22       Impact factor: 7.124

8.  Analysis of 4999 online physician ratings indicates that most patients give physicians a favorable rating.

Authors:  Bassam Kadry; Larry F Chu; Bayan Kadry; Danya Gammas; Alex Macario
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2011-11-16       Impact factor: 5.428

9.  A changing landscape of physician quality reporting: analysis of patients' online ratings of their physicians over a 5-year period.

Authors:  Guodong Gordon Gao; Jeffrey S McCullough; Ritu Agarwal; Ashish K Jha
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2012-02-24       Impact factor: 5.428

10.  Physician choice making and characteristics associated with using physician-rating websites: cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Martin Emmert; Florian Meier; Frank Pisch; Uwe Sander
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2013-08-28       Impact factor: 5.428

View more
  10 in total

1.  Characterizing negative reviews of orthopedic spine surgeons and practices.

Authors:  Joseph C Brinkman; Jordan R Pollock; Jaymeson R Arthur; Jacob Smith; Keldon Lin; Michael S Chang
Journal:  N Am Spine Soc J       Date:  2022-05-21

2.  How Referring Providers Choose Specialists for Their Patients: a Systematic Review.

Authors:  Caitlin B Finn; Jason K Tong; Hannah E Alexander; Chris Wirtalla; Heather Wachtel; Carmen E Guerra; Shivan J Mehta; Richard Wender; Rachel R Kelz
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2022-04-19       Impact factor: 6.473

3.  Online Ratings of Urologists: Comprehensive Analysis.

Authors:  C William Pike; Jacqueline Zillioux; David Rapp
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2019-07-02       Impact factor: 5.428

4.  What Do Patients Say About Doctors Online? A Systematic Review of Studies on Patient Online Reviews.

Authors:  Y Alicia Hong; Chen Liang; Tiffany A Radcliff; Lisa T Wigfall; Richard L Street
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2019-04-08       Impact factor: 5.428

5.  Online physician reviews: is there a place for them?

Authors:  Gregory P Murphy; Kushan D Radadia; Benjamin N Breyer
Journal:  Risk Manag Healthc Policy       Date:  2019-05-15

6.  What Patients Value in Physicians: Analyzing Drivers of Patient Satisfaction Using Physician-Rating Website Data.

Authors:  Sonja Bidmon; Ossama Elshiewy; Ralf Terlutter; Yasemin Boztug
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2020-02-03       Impact factor: 5.428

7.  The Majority of Complaints About Orthopedic Sports Surgeons on Yelp Are Nonclinical.

Authors:  Jordan R Pollock; Jaymeson R Arthur; Jacob F Smith; Tala Mujahed; Joseph C Brinkman; M Lane Moore; Anikar Chhabra
Journal:  Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil       Date:  2021-08-18

8.  What Affects an Orthopaedic Surgeon's Online Rating? A Large-Scale, Retrospective Analysis.

Authors:  Mital D Patel; Marshall D Williams; Merritt J Thompson; Parth N Desai
Journal:  J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev       Date:  2022-03-15

9.  Data Quality Issues With Physician-Rating Websites: Systematic Review.

Authors:  Priya Anand; Shashank Shekhar; Priya Karadi; Pavankumar Mulgund; Raj Sharman
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2020-09-28       Impact factor: 5.428

10.  Cross-sectional analysis of online patient reviews of infertility care providers.

Authors:  Ricci Allen; Shruti Agarwal; Mark P Trolice
Journal:  F S Rep       Date:  2020-07-25
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.