TY - JOUR AU - Segal, Jeffrey AU - Sacopulos, Michael AU - Sheets, Virgil AU - Thurston, Irish AU - Brooks, Kendra AU - Puccia, Ryan PY - 2012 DA - 2012/04/10 TI -在线医生评论:他们跟踪外科医生数量吗?JO - J Med Internet Res SP - e50 VL - 14 IS - 2 KW -医生评论KW -评级网站KW -医生评论KW -在线声誉KW -临床结果KW -医生选择KW -手术量KW -外科医生量AB -背景:越来越多的消费者访问互联网寻求健康信息。消费者也在使用在线医生评论网站来帮助他们选择医生。这些网站会统计过去患者的数字评分和评论。据我们所知，之前没有研究分析过在医生评论网站上拥有积极在线声誉的医生是否真的提供了更高质量的护理，通常与更好的临床结果和更好的安全记录有关。目的:对于许多手术，手术次数多的外科医生比手术次数少的外科医生有更好的临床结果和安全记录。我们的目标是确定作为临床结果和患者安全代表的外科医生数量是否与在线声誉相关。方法:我们调查了9个在线评论网站上对三种手术(腰椎手术、全膝关节置换术和减肥手术)的高容量和低容量外科医生的数字评分和评论。从使用相关现行程序术语(CPT)代码提交报销的索赔中最高四分位数的组中随机选择高容量外科医生。小容量外科医生从提交的手术相关CPT代码索赔的最低四分之一中随机选择。 Claims were collated within the Normative HealthInformation Database, covering multiple payers for more than 25 millioninsured patients. Results: Numerical ratings were found for the majority of physicians in our sample (547/600, 91.2%) and comments were found for 385/600 (64.2%) of the physicians. We found that high-volume (HV) surgeons could be differentiated from low-volume (LV) surgeons independently by analyzing: (1) the total number of numerical ratings per website (HV: mean = 5.85; LV: mean = 4.87, P<.001); (2) the total number of text comments per website (HV: mean = 2.74; LV: mean = 2.30, P=.05); (3) the proportion of glowing praise/total comments about quality of care (HV: mean = 0.64; LV: mean = 0.51, P=.002); and (4) the proportion of scathing criticism/total comments about quality of care (HV: mean = 0.14; LV: mean = 0.23, P= .005). Even when these features were combined, the effect size, although significant, was still weak. The results revealed that one could accurately identify a physician’s patient volume via discriminant and classification analysis 61.6% of the time. We also found that high-volume surgeons could not be differentiated from low-volume surgeons by analyzing (1) standardized z score numerical ratings (HV: mean = 0.07; LV: mean = 0, P=.27); (2) proportion of glowing praise/total comments about customer service (HV: mean = 0.24; LV: mean = 0.22, P=.52); and (3) proportion of scathing criticism/total comments about customer service (HV: mean = 0.19; LV: mean = 0.21, P=.48). Conclusions: Online review websites provide a rich source of data that may be able to track quality of care, although the effect size is weak and not consistent for all review website metrics. SN - 1438-8871 UR - //www.mybigtv.com/2012/2/e50/ UR - https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2005 UR - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22491423 DO - 10.2196/jmir.2005 ID - info:doi/10.2196/jmir.2005 ER -