title: Analysis of 4999 online physician ratings indicates that most patients give physicians a favorable rating.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Many online physician-rating sites provide patients with information about physicians and allow patients to rate physicians. Understanding what information is available is important given that patients may use this information to choose a physician.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  The goals of this study were to (1) determine the most frequently visited physician-rating websites with user-generated content, (2) evaluate the available information on these websites, and (3) analyze 4999 individual online ratings of physicians.
  
  
  METHODS
  On October 1, 2010, using Google Trends we identified the 10 most frequently visited online physician-rating sites with user-generated content. We then studied each site to evaluate the available information (eg, board certification, years in practice), the types of rating scales (eg, 1-5, 1-4, 1-100), and dimensions of care (eg, recommend to a friend, waiting room time) used to rate physicians. We analyzed data from 4999 selected physician ratings without identifiers to assess how physicians are rated online.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The 10 most commonly visited websites with user-generated content were HealthGrades.com, Vitals.com, Yelp.com, YP.com, RevolutionHealth.com, RateMD.com, Angieslist.com, Checkbook.org, Kudzu.com, and ZocDoc.com. A total of 35 different dimensions of care were rated by patients in the websites, with a median of 4.5 (mean 4.9, SD 2.8, range 1-9) questions per site. Depending on the scale used for each physician-rating website, the average rating was 77 out of 100 for sites using a 100-point scale (SD 11, median 76, range 33-100), 3.84 out of 5 (77%) for sites using a 5-point scale (SD 0.98, median 4, range 1-5), and 3.1 out of 4 (78%) for sites using a 4-point scale (SD 0.72, median 3, range 1-4). The percentage of reviews rated ≥75 on a 100-point scale was 61.5% (246/400), ≥4 on a 5-point scale was 57.74% (2078/3599), and ≥3 on a 4-point scale was 74.0% (740/1000). The patient's single overall rating of the physician correlated with the other dimensions of care that were rated by patients for the same physician (Pearson correlation, r = .73, P < .001).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Most patients give physicians a favorable rating on online physician-rating sites. A single overall rating to evaluate physicians may be sufficient to assess a patient's opinion of the physician. The optimal content and rating method that is useful to patients when visiting online physician-rating sites deserves further study. Conducting a qualitative analysis to compare the quantitative ratings would help validate the rating instruments used to evaluate physicians.
authors.affiliation: Department of Anesthesia, School of Medicine, Stanford University, CA 94305, United States. bkadry@stanford.edu
authors.forename: Bassam
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Kadry
authors.forename: Larry F
authors.initials: LF
authors.lastname: Chu
authors.forename: Bayan
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Kadry
authors.forename: Danya
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Gammas
authors.forename: Alex
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Macario
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D006801:Humans; D020407:Internet; D017060:Patient Satisfaction / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D010817:Physician-Patient Relations; D010820:Physicians; D061108:Social Media; D014481:United States
references.citation: BMJ. 2008 Sep 30;337:a1408
references.pmid: 18826978
references.citation: J Leg Med. 2009 Jul-Sep;30(3):349-88
references.pmid: 19681012
references.citation: Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2005 Aug;133(2):169-72
references.pmid: 16087007
references.citation: Pain Physician. 2009 May-Jun;12(3):659-64
references.pmid: 19461833
references.citation: J Gen Intern Med. 2010 Nov;25(11):1152-6
references.pmid: 20544300
references.citation: Neurologist. 2008 Nov;14(6):374-81
references.pmid: 19008743
references.citation: BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010 Jun 08;10:50
references.pmid: 20529365
references.citation: Fam Pract Manag. 2009 Jul-Aug;16(4):10
references.pmid: 19626735
references.citation: Washington Post. 1996 Sep 24;:Health, 14-20
references.pmid: 11648038
references.citation: Time. 2008 Jan 14;171(2):62
references.pmid: 18271202
references.citation: Fed Regist. 2011 May 6;76(88):26490-547
references.pmid: 21548401
references.citation: BMJ. 2009 Mar 17;338:b1030
references.pmid: 19293223
references.citation: Geospat Health. 2010 May;4(2):135-7
references.pmid: 20503183
references.citation: Healthc Exec. 2008 Mar-Apr;23(2):47-8
references.pmid: 18481634
references.citation: Health Care Innov. 1996 Sep-Oct;6(5):9-12, 29-33
references.pmid: 10163588
references.citation: Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2010;104(7):572-7
references.pmid: 21095610
references.citation: Clin Infect Dis. 2009 Nov 15;49(10):1557-64
references.pmid: 19845471
references.citation: Fam Pract Manag. 2009 May-Jun;16(3):9-11
references.pmid: 19492765
references.citation: J Arthroplasty. 2002 Jun;17(4):457-62
references.pmid: 12066276
references.citation: Harv Bus Rev. 2003 Dec;81(12):46-54, 124
references.pmid: 14712543
references.citation: Orthopedics. 2009 Sep;32(9):
references.pmid: 19751023
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 2010 Jan 7;362(1):6-7
references.pmid: 20054044
references.citation: J Clin Epidemiol. 2005 Jan;58(1):103-5
references.pmid: 15649678
references.citation: Med Econ. 2008 Dec 5;85(23):27-9
references.pmid: 19209533
references.citation: Med Econ. 2008 Dec 5;85(23):18-22
references.pmid: 19209532
references.citation: BMC Health Serv Res. 2010 Dec 07;10:332
references.pmid: 21138579
references.citation: J Gen Intern Med. 2010 Sep;25(9):942-6
references.pmid: 20464523
references.citation: CMAJ. 2009 May 12;180(10):1010
references.pmid: 19433818
references.citation: SCI Nurs. 2002 Summer;19(2):78-9
references.pmid: 12510511
references.citation: Bull World Health Organ. 2009 Apr;87(4):271-8
references.pmid: 19551235
references.citation: Sci Am. 2010 Jul;303(1):26, 28
references.pmid: 20583659
references.citation: Int J Nurs Pract. 2006 Aug;12(4):178-92
references.pmid: 16834578
references.citation: US News World Rep. 2008 Mar 10;144(7):54
references.pmid: 18435303
references.citation: Int J Med Inform. 2003 Dec;72(1-3):1-8
references.pmid: 14644301