Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Online ratings of spinal deformity surgeons: analysis of 634 surgeons

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Spine Deformity Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Study design

Observational study.

Objective

To evaluate the online ratings of spine deformity surgeons and variables that may affect online ratings

Summary of background data

Physician review websites (PRW) continue to be an emerging trend in the US across all specialties. Previous literature with smaller sample sizes revealed that most spine surgeons are rated on at least on PRW. To date, the online ratings of spinal deformity surgeons have not been evaluated.

Materials and methods

A review of the 2017 Scoliosis Research Society (SRS) Fellowship directory for active fellows and candidate members yielded 634 active members. Online ratings from five PRWs were recorded and scaled from 0 to 100. Using SPSS, one-way analysis of variance was used to compare differences between multiple groups. A t test was used to compare differences between two groups. Significance was set at p < 0.05.

Results

Most surgeons (98.7%) were rated on at least one PRW. Surgeons in academic or hospital practice had higher ratings than those in private practice (83.4 vs. 78.8, and 83.7 vs. 78.8, p < 0.001). Surgeons with 0–5-year experience had higher ratings than more experienced surgeons (p < 0.001). However, surgeons in practice for 0–5 years also had fewer reviews than their more experienced colleagues (p < 0.05). We found no differences in ratings based on sex, specialty, or region. The largest differences in ratings between high and poorly rated spine surgeons was in areas pertaining to the doctor–patient relationship (answering questions, time spent with the patient).

Conclusion

The majority (98.7%) of SRS surgeons are rated on at least one PRW. SRS surgeons in practice between 0 and 5 years have higher ratings than more experienced surgeons, but were rated by fewer patients than their more experienced counterparts. Higher ratings were associated with variables pertaining to the patient–doctor relationship.

Level of evidence

IV.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Taylor H (2018) “Cyberchondriacs” on the rise? Those who go online for healthcare information continues to increase. http://www.harrisinteractive.com/vault/HI-Harris-Poll-Cyberchondriacs-2010-08-04.pdf. Accessed 19 Aug 2018

  2. 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 (Epub 2011/11/18)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Fox S. The social life of health information, 2011. http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/Social-Life-of-Health-Info.aspx. Accessed 30 June 2018

  4. 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 (Epub 2016/12/15)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ryan T, Specht J, Smith S, DelGaudio JM (2016) Does the Press Ganey Survey correlate to online health grades for a major academic otolaryngology department? Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 155(3):411–415 (Epub 2016/05/26)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Lewis P, Kobayashi E, Gupta S (2015) An online review of plastic surgeons in southern California. Ann Plast Surg 74(Suppl 1):S66–S70 (Epub 2015/04/16)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Ellimoottil C, Hart A, Greco K, Quek ML, Farooq A (2013) Online reviews of 500 urologists. J Urol 189(6):2269–2273 (Epub 2012/12/12)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Vu AF, Espinoza GM, Perry JD, Chundury RV (2017) Online ratings of ASOPRS surgeons: what do your patients really think of you? Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg 33(6):466–470 (Epub 2016/11/24)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Nwachukwu BU, Adjei J, Trehan SK, Chang B, Amoo-Achampong K, Nguyen JT et al (2016) Rating a sports medicine surgeon’s “quality” in the modern era: an analysis of popular physician online rating websites. HSS J 12(3):272–277 (Epub 2016/10/06)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Trehan SK, Daluiski A (2016) Online patient ratings: why they matter and what they mean. J Hand Surg Am 41(2):316–319 (Epub 2016/01/13)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 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 (Epub 2014/05/31)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Zhang J, Omar A, Mesfin A (2017) On-line ratings of spine surgeons: analysis of 208 surgeons. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 43:E722–E726 (Epub 2017/11/16)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bakhsh W, Mesfin A (2014) Online ratings of orthopedic surgeons: analysis of 2185 reviews. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 43(8):359–363 (Epub 2014/08/20)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Frost C, Mesfin A (2015) Online reviews of orthopedic surgeons: an emerging trend. Orthopedics 38(4):e257–e262 (Epub 2015/04/23)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Trehan SK, DeFrancesco CJ, Nguyen JT, Charalel RA, Daluiski A (2016) Online patient ratings of hand surgeons. J Hand Surg Am 41(1):98–103 (Epub 2015/12/30)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 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 (Epub 2015/04/12)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Jack RA, Burn MB, McCulloch PC, Liberman SR, Varner KE, Harris JD (2018) Does experience matter? A meta-analysis of physician rating websites of orthopaedic surgeons. Musculoskelet Surg 102(1):63–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Carbonell G, Meshi D, Brand M (2018) The use of recommendations on physician rating websites: the number of raters makes the difference when adjusting decisions. Health Commun 34(13):1–10

    Google Scholar 

  19. Kalagara S, Eltorai AEM, DePasse JM, Daniels AH (2018) Predictive factors of positive online patient ratings of spinesurgeons. Spine J. 19:182–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

There was no funding provided for this study. IRB approval was not needed for this study since publicly accessible data was used.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX, USA

    Giresse Melone & James Brodell Jr.

  2. Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, 601 Elmwood Ave, Box 665, Rochester, NY, 14642, USA

    Cesar Hernandez, Emmanuel Menga, Rishi Balkissoon & Addisu Mesfin

  3. Department of Orthopedics, Wuhan General Hospital of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army, Wuhan, 430070, Hubei, China

    Ximing Liu

  4. Department of Orthopedics, Zhejiang Provincial People’s Hospital, Hangzhou, 310014, Zhejiang, China

    Jun Zhang

Authors
  1. Giresse Melone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. James Brodell Jr.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Cesar Hernandez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Emmanuel Menga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Rishi Balkissoon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ximing Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jun Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Addisu Mesfin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

GM BS: the acquisition, analysis, interpretation of data for the work; and drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and final approval of the version to be published. JB Jr. BA: the acquisition, analysis, interpretation of data for the work; and drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and final approval of the version to be published. CH BA: the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; and drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and final approval of the version to be published. EM MD: substantial contributions to the conception; and drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and final approval of the version to be published. RB, MD: substantial contributions to the conception; and drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and final approval of the version to be published. XL MD: the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; and drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and final approval of the version to be published. JZ MD: the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; and drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and final approval of the version to be published. AM MD: substantial contributions to the conception; and drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and final approval of the version to be published.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Addisu Mesfin.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Melone, G., Brodell, J., Hernandez, C. et al. Online ratings of spinal deformity surgeons: analysis of 634 surgeons. Spine Deform 8, 17–24 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43390-019-00012-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43390-019-00012-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation