Coverage, Traits, and Geographic Distribution of Online Surgeon Reviews: Large-Scale Cross-Sectional Analysis

Résumé fourni par la source

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.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.