Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Assessing reviews of academic oral and maxillofacial surgeons within the US on Healthgrades

  • Research
  • Published:
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of the following study was to explore the patient feedback on academic oral and maxillofacial surgeons (OMSs) practicing in the United States (US) using the physician rating website (PRW) Healthgrades.com.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study on academic OMSs in the US using data from Healthgrades.com. Predictor variables included OMS characteristics or rating characteristics. The primary outcome variable was overall rating. Linear regression was used to determine independent predictors of overall rating.

Results

The final study sample consisted of 309 academic OMSs (mean age, 56.4 years; males, 86.4%). Age group was significantly associated with overall rating (p = 0.034). Dual-degree OMSs had a higher mean overall rating than single-degree OMSs (4.26 vs. 3.98, p = 0.012). The number of ratings was also significantly associated with overall rating (p = 0.019). Upon controlling for all other variables, merely age group was independently associated with overall rating. Specifically, OMSs aged 41–55 years were associated with a higher overall rating (+0.96, p = 0.022) relative to OMSs aged >70 years.

Conclusions

The OPRs on Healthgrades.com for academic OMSs within the US are generally positive. Age was the only independent predictor for overall rating — younger OMSs (aged 41–55 years) were independently associated with a higher overall rating relative to older OMSs (aged >70 years). The new generation of younger OMSs is likely to be aware of PRWs and their implications in the growing world of online exposure.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Healthgrades is a publicly available website.

References

  1. Hanauer DA, Zheng K, Singer DC, Gebremariam A, Davis MM (2014) Public awareness, perception, and use of online physician rating sites. JAMA. 311(7):734–735

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Findlay SD (2016) Consumers’ interest in provider ratings grows, and improved report cards and other steps could accelerate their use. Health Aff (Millwood). 35(4):688–696

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Carbonell G, Brand M (2018) Choosing a physician on social media: comments and ratings of users are more important than the qualification of a physician. Int J Hum-Comput Interact. 34(2):117–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Lagu T, Hannon NS, Rothberg MB, Lindenauer PK (2010) Patients’ evaluations of health care providers in the era of social networking: an analysis of physician-rating websites. J Gen Intern Med. 25(9):942–946

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Hong YA, Liang C, Radcliff TA, Wigfall LT, Street RL (2019) What do patients say about doctors online? a systematic review of studies on patient online reviews. J Med Internet Res. 21(4):e12521

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Emmert M, Sander U, Pisch F (2013) Eight questions about physician-rating websites: a systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 15(2):e24

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Lopez A, Detz A, Ratanawongsa N, Sarkar U (2012) What patients say about their doctors online: a qualitative content analysis. J Gen Intern Med. 27(6):685–692

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Kadry B, Chu LF, Kadry B, Gammas D, Macario A (2011) Analysis of 4999 online physician ratings indicates that most patients give physicians a favorable rating. J Med Internet Res. 13(4):e95

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Feel better about finding healthcare. https://www.healthgrades.com. Accessed August, 2022

  10. Prabhu AV, Randhawa S, Clump D, Heron DE, Beriwal S (2018) What do patients think about their radiation oncologists? An assessment of online patient reviews on Healthgrades. Cureus. 10(2):e2165

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Gilbert K, Hawkins CM, Hughes DR et al (2015) Physician rating websites: do radiologists have an online presence? J Am Coll Radiol. 12(8):867–871

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. McCormick JR, Patel MS, Hodakowski AJ et al (2021) Social media use by shoulder and elbow surgeons increases the number of ratings on physician review websites. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 30(12):e713–e723

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Yu J, Samuel LT, Yalcin S, Sultan AA, Kamath AF (2020) Patient-recorded physician ratings: what can we learn from 11,527 online reviews of orthopedic surgeons? J Arthroplasty. 35(6S):S364–S367

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lewis P, Kobayashi E, Gupta S (2015) An online review of plastic surgeons in southern California. Ann Plast Surg. 74(Suppl 1):S66-70

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Dorfman RG, Purnell C, Qiu C, Ellis MF, Basu CB, Kim JYS (2018) Happy and unhappy patients: a quantitative analysis of online plastic surgeon reviews for breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 141(5):663e–673e

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Gupta A, Gupta R, White MD et al (2021) Patient satisfaction reviews for 967 spine neurosurgeons on Healthgrades. J Neurosurg Spine. 36(5):869–875

  17. Donnally CJ, McCormick JR, Li DJ et al (2018) How do physician demographics, training, social media usage, online presence, and wait times influence online physician review scores for spine surgeons? J Neurosurg Spine. 30(2):279–288

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Basa K, Jabbour N, Rohlfing M et al (2021) Online reputations: comparing hospital- and patient-generated ratings in academic otolaryngology. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 130(12):1317–1325

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Sobin L, Goyal P (2014) Trends of online ratings of otolaryngologists: what do your patients really think of you? JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 140(7):635–638

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Chua JT, Nguyen E, Risbud A et al (2021) Online ratings and perceptions of pediatric otolaryngologists. Laryngoscope. 131(10):2356–2360

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Lin Y, Hong YA, Henson BS et al (2020) Assessing patient experience and healthcare quality of dental care using patient online reviews in the United States: mixed methods study. J Med Internet Res. 22(7):e18652

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Susarla SM, Lopez J, Swanson EW et al (2015) Are quantitative measures of academic productivity correlated with academic rank in plastic surgery? A national study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 136(3):613–621

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Svider PF, Choudhry ZA, Choudhry OJ, Baredes S, Liu JK, Eloy JA (2013) The use of the h-index in academic otolaryngology. Laryngoscope. 123(1):103–106

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Svider PF, Pashkova AA, Choudhry Z et al (2013) Comparison of scholarly impact among surgical specialties: an examination of 2429 academic surgeons. Laryngoscope. 123(4):884–889

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. DeLuca LA Jr, St John A, Stolz U, Matheson L, Simpson A, Denninghoff KR (2013) The distribution of the h-index among academic emergency physicians in the United States. Acad Emerg Med. 20(10):997–1003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Hirsch JE (2007) Does the H index have predictive power? Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 104(49):19193–19198

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Lee J, Kraus KL, Couldwell WT (2009) Use of the h index in neurosurgery. Clinical article. J Neurosurg. 111(2):387–392

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Benway BM, Kalidas P, Cabello JM, Bhayani SB (2009) Does citation analysis reveal association between h-index and academic rank in urology? Urology. 74(1):30–33

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Rad AE, Brinjikji W, Cloft HJ, Kallmes DF (2010) The H-index in academic radiology. Acad Radiol. 17(7):817–821

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Bakhsh W, Mesfin A (2014) Online ratings of orthopedic surgeons: analysis of 2185 reviews. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 43(8):359–363

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Prabhu AV, Kim C, De Guzman E et al (2017) Reputation management and content control: an analysis of radiation oncologists’ digital identities. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 99(5):1083–1091

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Holliday AM, Kachalia A, Meyer GS, Sequist TD (2017) Physician and patient views on public physician rating websites: a cross-sectional study. J Gen Intern Med. 32(6):626–631

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Kirkpatrick W, Abboudi J, Kim N et al (2017) An assessment of online reviews of hand surgeons. Arch Bone Jt Surg. 5(3):139–144

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Bifulco M, Pisanti S (2019) Integrating medical humanities into medical school training. EMBO Rep. 20(12):e48830

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Donate-Bartfield E, Lobb WK, Roucka TM (2014) Teaching culturally sensitive care to dental students: a multidisciplinary approach. J Dent Educ. 78(3):454–464

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Grabner-Krauter S, Waiguny MK (2015) Insights into the impact of online physician reviews on patients’ decision making: randomized experiment. J Med Internet Res. 17(4):e93

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Hirsch JE (2005) An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 102(46):16569–16572

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Wang RY, Strong DM (2015) Beyond accuracy: what data quality means to data consumers. J Manag Inf Syst. 12(4):5–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Trehan SK, Nguyen JT, Marx R et al (2018) Online patient ratings are not correlated with total knee replacement surgeon-specific outcomes. HSS J. 14(2):177–180

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Okike K, Peter-Bibb TK, Xie KC, Okike ON (2016) Association between physician online rating and quality of care. J Med Internet Res. 18(12):e324

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Dental Medicine, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA

    Dani Stanbouly, Zacharie Rahhal & Austin Talis

  2. University of Michigan School of Dentistry, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Rami Stanbouly

  3. Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Mount Sinai Health System, New York, NY, USA

    Michael Baron

  4. Section of Head & Neck Oncologic and Reconstructive Surgery, Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic and Mayo College of Medicine and Science, Rochester, MN, USA

    Kevin Arce

  5. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial- Head and Neck Surgery, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA

    Srinivasa R. Chandra

Authors
  1. Dani Stanbouly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zacharie Rahhal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Austin Talis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Rami Stanbouly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Michael Baron
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Kevin Arce
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Srinivasa R. Chandra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Dani Stanbouly conceived the study idea and drafted the article. Zacharie Rahal, Austin Tallis, and Rami Stanbouly collected the data. Michael Baron thoroughly revised the article. Kevin Arce and Srinivasa R. Chandra revised the article and provided the final approval for submission.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dani Stanbouly.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Since the data was acquired from a publicly available website (Healthgrades), no ethics approval was required for participation.

Consent for publication

N/A.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Competing interests

Dr. Kevin Arce is on the editorial board of the journal.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Stanbouly, D., Rahhal, Z., Talis, A. et al. Assessing reviews of academic oral and maxillofacial surgeons within the US on Healthgrades. Oral Maxillofac Surg 28, 323–330 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10006-023-01146-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10006-023-01146-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation