TY - JOUR
T1 - Coverage, Traits, and Geographic Distribution of Online Surgeon Reviews
T2 - Large-Scale Cross-Sectional Analysis
AU - Geng, Michael
AU - Riveros, Carlos
AU - Shah, Yash B.
AU - Ranganathan, Sanjana
AU - Fok, Kai
AU - Titus, Renil Sinu
AU - Mundra, Vatsala
AU - Velasquez, Eusebio Luna
AU - Kaushik, Dharam
AU - Detsky, Allan S.
AU - Jerath, Angela
AU - Breyer, Benjamin N.
AU - Tsugawa, Yusuke
AU - Wallis, Christopher J.D.
AU - Satkunasivam, Raj
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© Michael Geng, Carlos Riveros, Yash B Shah, Sanjana Ranganathan, Kai Fok, Renil Sinu Titus, Vatsala Mundra, Eusebio Luna Velasquez, Dharam Kaushik, Allan S Detsky, Angela Jerath, Benjamin N Breyer, Yusuke Tsugawa, Christopher J D Wallis, Raj Satkunasivam.
PY - 2026
Y1 - 2026
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - coverage
KW - demographics
KW - online ratings
KW - reviews
KW - surgeons
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105036238910
UR - https://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=105036238910&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.2196/79427
DO - 10.2196/79427
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:105036238910
SN - 2561-326X
VL - 10
JO - JMIR Formative Research
JF - JMIR Formative Research
M1 - e79427
ER -