{"product_id":"do-online-doctor-ratings-actually-tell-you-anything-study-says-no","title":"Do Online Doctor Ratings Actually Tell You Anything? Study Says No","description":"\u003cp\u003eIf you've ever chosen a doctor based on online reviews, a new study suggests you may want to look deeper. Researchers at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles compared physician ratings from five popular websites (like Yelp and Healthgrades) against actual clinical performance data for 78 specialists across eight medical and surgical fields. The results were clear: online star ratings showed no meaningful relationship with objective measures of quality of care, value of care (cost-efficiency), or peer assessments from other doctors and administrators. Even worse, among the lowest-performing physicians, only 5% to 32% had low online ratings, meaning the reviews failed to flag most of the doctors who scored worst on clinical performance measures.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003ch1\u003eDo Online Doctor Ratings Actually Tell You Anything? Study Says No\u003c\/h1\u003e\n\n\u003ch2\u003eTable of Contents\u003c\/h2\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"#ddn-key-points\"\u003eKey Points\u003c\/a\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\n  \u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"#background\"\u003eBackground: Why This Research Matters\u003c\/a\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"#methods\"\u003eStudy Methods: How the Research Was Conducted\u003c\/a\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"#key-findings\"\u003eKey Findings: What the Data Showed\u003c\/a\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"#clinical-implications\"\u003eClinical Implications: What This Means for Patients\u003c\/a\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"#limitations\"\u003eStudy Limitations: What This Research Couldn't Prove\u003c\/a\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"#future\"\u003eFuture Directions: How Online Ratings Could Be Improved\u003c\/a\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"#recommendations\"\u003eRecommendations: Practical Advice for Patients\u003c\/a\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"#ddn-faq\"\u003eFrequently Asked Questions\u003c\/a\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003ca href=\"#source\"\u003eSource Information\u003c\/a\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\n\u003c!-- ddn:keypoints:start --\u003e\n\u003ch2 id=\"ddn-key-points\"\u003eKey Points\u003c\/h2\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOnline doctor ratings did not predict quality, value, or peer assessments in a study of 78 specialists.\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAmong lowest-performing physicians, only 5% to 32% had low online ratings across platforms.\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRatings may reflect office experience or wait times, not clinical skill.\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePatients should ask primary care doctors, check Choosing Wisely adherence, and consider hospital-level quality data.\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFree-text comments may offer useful insights about communication and office logistics, but star ratings alone are not reliable.\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003c!-- ddn:keypoints:end --\u003e\n\n\n\u003ch2 id=\"background\"\u003eBackground: Why This Research Matters\u003c\/h2\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eWe've all been there—feeling unwell, needing a specialist, and pulling out our phones to scan online reviews. It turns out, most of us are doing exactly that. A 2012 survey of 2,137 American adults found that \u003cstrong\u003e65% were aware of physician-rating websites\u003c\/strong\u003e, and \u003cstrong\u003e59% said these sites were either \"somewhat important\" or \"very important\"\u003c\/strong\u003e when choosing a doctor.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThe numbers get even more striking. A survey of 1,000 surgical patients at the Mayo Clinic revealed that \u003cstrong\u003e81% would seek a consultation from a physician based on positive reviews alone\u003c\/strong\u003e, and \u003cstrong\u003e77% would refuse to see a physician based solely on negative reviews\u003c\/strong\u003e. This trend isn't just an American phenomenon—similar patterns have been reported across Europe.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eEven health insurance companies are jumping on the bandwagon. Payers are now incorporating online consumer ratings into their physician search tools, suggesting that insurance companies believe these ratings are trustworthy measures of what the researchers call \"ground-truth clinical performance\"—meaning how good a doctor really is at their job.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eBut here's the critical question: \u003cstrong\u003eDo those stars actually reflect how well a doctor practices medicine?\u003c\/strong\u003e The most popular rating websites offer no guidance on what criteria patients should use when evaluating a physician, which makes the results difficult to interpret. Some believe the ratings measure things like office environment or staff friendliness rather than clinical skill, but the limited data available suggested the opposite—or were simply inconclusive. This study was designed to settle the question with rigorous, multidimensional data.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003ch2 id=\"methods\"\u003eStudy Methods: How the Research Was Conducted\u003c\/h2\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThe research team set out to answer a straightforward question: do online physician ratings predict actual performance? To do this, they studied \u003cstrong\u003e78 physicians representing 8 medical and surgical specialties\u003c\/strong\u003e at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, an 886-bed tertiary referral hospital that serves as a hybrid academic-community medical center.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThe physicians were originally selected from a pool of 123 eligible doctors. Researchers excluded those who weren't using the health system's electronic health record (EHR) in their ambulatory practice (30 doctors), those who received fewer than 3 peer-review survey responses (14 doctors), and those who had no online consumer rating data available (1 doctor), leaving the final group of 78.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe physician sample looked like this:\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003e\n\u003cstrong\u003eSpecialties:\u003c\/strong\u003e Cardiology (25 doctors, 32%), Neurology (11, 14%), Nephrology (10, 13%), Obstetrics\/Gynecology (9, 12%), Endocrinology (7, 9%), Otolaryngology (6, 8%), Gastroenterology (6, 8%), and General Surgery (4, 5%)\u003c\/li\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003e\n\u003cstrong\u003eRace:\u003c\/strong\u003e Caucasian (50, 64%), Asian (19, 24%), other (9, 12%)\u003c\/li\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003e\n\u003cstrong\u003eGender:\u003c\/strong\u003e Male (66, 84%), female (12, 16%)\u003c\/li\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003e\n\u003cstrong\u003ePractice type:\u003c\/strong\u003e Cedars-Sinai Medical Group (36, 46%), private practice (34, 44%), faculty group (8, 10%)\u003c\/li\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003e\n\u003cstrong\u003eYears in practice:\u003c\/strong\u003e Median of 33.5 years (range 19–43 years)\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eResearchers collected consumer ratings from the \u003cstrong\u003efive most popular online platforms according to Google Trends\u003c\/strong\u003e: Healthgrades, Vitals, Yelp, RateMDs, and UCompareHealth. Each website invites consumers to rate physicians using a 5-star scale. The team recorded each physician's average rating and the number of ratings behind that average. Median ratings across platforms ranged from 4.0 to 4.5 stars, with physicians typically receiving 4 to 9 reviews.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eTo measure actual clinical performance, the team used three distinct assessments:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003col\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003e\n\u003cstrong\u003eSpecialty-specific performance scores:\u003c\/strong\u003e A composite metric built by specialty physicians through an intensive stakeholder process. Doctors rated each candidate metric using the modified RAND Appropriateness Method, and the top 5 metrics within each specialty were selected. These included measures of quality (like adherence to Choosing Wisely measures) and value of care (like use of generic medications and case mix–adjusted length of stay). Each metric was weighted between 0 and 100 based on relevance, and scores were calculated for fiscal years 2013–2014 by analysts who were blinded to the consumer rating results.\u003c\/li\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003e\n\u003cstrong\u003ePrimary Care Physician (PCP) survey scores:\u003c\/strong\u003e Thirty-two primary care physicians rated each specialist using a 9-point modified RAND scale (from 1, \"completely disagree,\" to 9, \"completely agree\") in response to the statement: \"Dr. [Name] is a strong partner in value-based healthcare.\" To avoid order effects, specialist profiles were presented in random order unique to each survey respondent.\u003c\/li\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003e\n\u003cstrong\u003eAdministrator survey scores:\u003c\/strong\u003e Twenty administrators and hospital leaders—including departmental leaders, directors of inpatient clinical programs, and personnel with broad-based knowledge of specialist performance—used the same 9-point scale and question to rate each specialist. Additional groups relevant to individual specialties (like dialysis staff for nephrologists and endoscopy staff for gastroenterologists) were also surveyed.\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ol\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eStatistical analysis included scatterplots with smoothing overlays, Spearman's rank correlation coefficients, and multivariable linear regression models that adjusted for number of reviews, physician specialty, race, gender, years since medical school graduation, and practice setting. Statistical significance was set at P \u0026lt; .05.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003ch2 id=\"key-findings\"\u003eKey Findings: What the Data Showed\u003c\/h2\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThe results were remarkably consistent across every platform and every measure of performance. Here's what the researchers found:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003ch3\u003eRatings vs. Actual Performance\u003c\/h3\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eScatterplots comparing average consumer ratings with specialty-specific performance scores showed \u003cstrong\u003eno relationship whatsoever\u003c\/strong\u003e. Across all platforms, there was either a negative or weak correlation between consumer ratings and performance scores (correlation range: −0.18 to 0.02).\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eAfter adjusting for other factors, the multivariable models confirmed no statistically significant or meaningful association between consumer ratings and performance scores. The \u003cstrong\u003eb-coefficient range was −0.04 to 0.04\u003c\/strong\u003e across all platforms—meaning that even a full 1-point increase in a doctor's star rating was associated with a change of less than one-twentieth of a point in their actual performance score.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003ePerhaps most concerning: \u003cstrong\u003eamong physicians in the lowest quartile of specialty-specific performance scores, only 5% to 32% had consumer ratings in the lowest quartile\u003c\/strong\u003e across the various platforms. In other words, the ratings system almost completely failed to identify the doctors who were performing most poorly.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003ch3\u003eNo Help from Subdomain Analysis\u003c\/h3\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThe researchers wondered if maybe ratings aligned with specific aspects of care even if they didn't match overall performance. They tested this by looking at subdomains:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003e\n\u003cstrong\u003eQuality-of-care metrics\u003c\/strong\u003e (adherence to Choosing Wisely measures and best practice alerts): No association with ratings.\u003c\/li\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003e\n\u003cstrong\u003eValue-based care metrics\u003c\/strong\u003e (generic medication utilization rate and case mix–adjusted length of stay): No association with ratings.\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eSo whether you're talking about following evidence-based guidelines, prescribing cost-effective medications, or getting patients home promptly, online stars told patients nothing about how well a doctor performed in these areas.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003ch3\u003eRatings vs. Peer Assessments\u003c\/h3\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eWhat about what other doctors think? Ratings also failed to correlate with peer assessments:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003e\n\u003cstrong\u003ePCP (primary care physician) scores:\u003c\/strong\u003e Correlation range of −0.04 to 0.07 across platforms, with b-coefficients ranging from −0.01 to 0.3 (not significant).\u003c\/li\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003e\n\u003cstrong\u003eAdministrator scores:\u003c\/strong\u003e Correlation range of −0.02 to 0.18, with b-coefficients ranging from −0.2 to 0.1 (not significant).\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eDoctors who were highly regarded by their primary care colleagues and hospital administrators were no more likely to have high online ratings than doctors with poor peer assessments.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003ch3\u003eConsistency Across Platforms\u003c\/h3\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eInterestingly, ratings were somewhat consistent \u003cem\u003eacross\u003c\/em\u003e platforms. A physician's score on one platform significantly predicted their score on another in \u003cstrong\u003e5 of 10 pairwise comparisons\u003c\/strong\u003e after statistical adjustment. This suggests that the platforms may be jointly measuring \u003cem\u003esomething\u003c\/em\u003e—but whatever that something is, it has nothing to do with clinical performance.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003ch3\u003eSummary of Key Numbers\u003c\/h3\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003eMedian specialty-specific performance score: 0.8 (IQR 0.5–0.9)\u003c\/li\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003eMedian PCP score: 6.8 (IQR 5.5–7.8) out of 9\u003c\/li\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003eMedian administrator score: 6.7 (IQR 5.3–7.5) out of 9\u003c\/li\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003eMedian consumer ratings by platform (stars): Yelp 4.0, Healthgrades 4.2, Vitals 4.0, RateMDs 4.0, UCompareHealth 4.5\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\n\u003ch2 id=\"clinical-implications\"\u003eClinical Implications: What This Means for Patients\u003c\/h2\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThis study provides some of the strongest evidence to date that online physician ratings, while popular and heavily used, are \u003cstrong\u003enot valid measures of clinical performance\u003c\/strong\u003e. The researchers framed this in terms of psychometric validity—the same framework used to evaluate any questionnaire or measurement tool.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003e\n\u003cstrong\u003eFace validity fails:\u003c\/strong\u003e Online platforms offer no guidance on what criteria patients should use to rate physicians, so it's unclear what a 5-star rating even means or whether it measures any explicit construct at all.\u003c\/li\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003e\n\u003cstrong\u003eContent validity fails:\u003c\/strong\u003e No consistent categories of patient experience are measured across platforms.\u003c\/li\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003e\n\u003cstrong\u003ePredictive and concurrent validity fail:\u003c\/strong\u003e The ratings cannot predict future physician performance and cannot distinguish between highly performing and poorly performing physicians—the two most basic functions of any useful assessment tool.\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThere's an important nuance here. When looking at \u003cem\u003ehospitals\u003c\/em\u003e rather than individual doctors, patient ratings have shown some ability to predict institutional quality. Two large retrospective studies found that web-based patient ratings of hospitals predicted hard outcomes like Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey scores, as well as hospital readmissions for myocardial infarction (heart attack), heart failure, and pneumonia. But translating that institutional-level validity down to individual physicians simply doesn't work.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eOne study using UK National Health Service Choices data found that among the 69% of physicians who were \"recommended\" in survey reviews, there were moderate associations with patient experience (Spearman's correlation 0.37–0.48, P \u0026lt; .001) but only weak associations with clinical process and outcome measures (Spearman's less than 0.18, P \u0026lt; .001). Other studies found that online reviews correlated with board certification status, quality of medical education, and physician volume—but none had robustly characterized performance across quality, value, and peer review simultaneously like this study did.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThe report directly challenges the approximately \u003cstrong\u003e80% of healthcare consumers who currently select physicians based on ratings alone\u003c\/strong\u003e. And it pushes back on insurance companies that have begun incorporating consumer ratings into physician search tools, suggesting these organizations may be relying on unreliable data.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003ch2 id=\"limitations\"\u003eStudy Limitations: What This Research Couldn't Prove\u003c\/h2\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eNo study is perfect, and the authors were transparent about their study's limitations:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003e\n\u003cstrong\u003eSample size and location:\u003c\/strong\u003e The study included only 78 physicians from a single health system in Los Angeles, which may limit how broadly the findings can be generalized to other regions, hospitals, or practice settings.\u003c\/li\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003e\n\u003cstrong\u003eLimited performance score variation:\u003c\/strong\u003e Because the study was conducted within one health system, there may have been a restricted range of performance scores, potentially making it harder to detect associations.\u003c\/li\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003e\n\u003cstrong\u003eAcademic center setting:\u003c\/strong\u003e The research was conducted at a hybrid academic-community hospital, which may not capture the full spectrum of practice environments. The authors noted this avoids some sampling bias associated with purely academic settings but still limits generalizability.\u003c\/li\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003e\n\u003cstrong\u003eNo access to HCAHPS or direct patient satisfaction scores:\u003c\/strong\u003e The researchers did not have data from the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) surveys or other formal patient satisfaction instruments. While they found modest associations between online reviews and National Committee for Quality Assurance consumer satisfaction scores for insurance plans (Pearson correlation = 0.376) in prior literature, they could not directly test what latent construct the online ratings were actually capturing.\u003c\/li\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003e\n\u003cstrong\u003eSmall numbers of reviews:\u003c\/strong\u003e With median review counts of only 4 to 9 per physician across platforms, individual physician ratings may be based on very limited samples of patient opinions.\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThe researchers also noted that what the ratings \u003cem\u003eare\u003c\/em\u003e measuring remains an open question—it may partially reflect patient satisfaction, but this study could not definitively identify the latent construct.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003ch2 id=\"future\"\u003eFuture Directions: How Online Ratings Could Be Improved\u003c\/h2\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eDespite their negative findings, the authors emphasized that patient assessments of physicians are important and will remain a permanent part of healthcare. The question is how to make them more useful. They offered three concrete recommendations:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003col\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003e\n\u003cstrong\u003eCreate a definable construct.\u003c\/strong\u003e Rating websites should clearly define what their ratings are intended to measure and provide instructions on how patients should evaluate physicians across metrics they are well positioned to assess—like communication, wait times, and whether the doctor listens.\u003c\/li\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003e\n\u003cstrong\u003eCombine ratings with quality and value data.\u003c\/strong\u003e Since online ratings clearly don't capture clinical quality or cost-efficiency, they should be paired with complementary data on these critical metrics so patients can see the full picture.\u003c\/li\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003e\n\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledge limitations.\u003c\/strong\u003e Companies offering physician rating services should take responsibility for helping consumers understand what their scores can and cannot tell them, recognizing that the stakes are high when patients are making healthcare decisions.\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ol\u003e\n\n\u003ch2 id=\"recommendations\"\u003eRecommendations: Practical Advice for Patients\u003c\/h2\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eSo what should you do the next time you need to find a specialist? Based on this research and the broader literature, consider these strategies:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003cul\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003e\n\u003cstrong\u003eDon't rely on star ratings alone.\u003c\/strong\u003e This study shows that stars don't predict clinical quality, value of care, or peer reputation. Treat them as one small piece of information, not a decisive factor.\u003c\/li\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003e\n\u003cstrong\u003eAsk your primary care doctor.\u003c\/strong\u003e Your PCP works with specialists every day and knows which ones communicate well, manage complex cases effectively, and provide cost-conscious, high-quality care. This is exactly the kind of expert peer assessment that online ratings failed to capture.\u003c\/li\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003e\n\u003cstrong\u003eLook for \"Choosing Wisely\" adherence.\u003c\/strong\u003e The Choosing Wisely campaign promotes evidence-based care by helping physicians and patients avoid unnecessary tests and procedures. Doctors who follow these recommendations are practicing high-quality, value-based medicine.\u003c\/li\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003e\n\u003cstrong\u003eCheck hospital quality data when available.\u003c\/strong\u003e While individual physician ratings don't predict performance, hospital-level patient ratings have shown some ability to predict institutional outcomes like readmissions for heart attack, heart failure, and pneumonia (118). National hospital comparison tools from the Centers for Medicare \u0026amp; Medicaid Services (CMS) can provide useful context.\u003c\/li\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003e\n\u003cstrong\u003eRead the comments, not just the stars.\u003c\/strong\u003e Free-text comments may give you useful insights about communication style, office logistics, and interpersonal care—aspects of the patient experience that are genuinely valuable, even if they don't measure clinical performance.\u003c\/li\u003e\n  \u003cli\u003e\n\u003cstrong\u003eSeek out board certification and volume information.\u003c\/strong\u003e These were among the few factors shown to correlate with online ratings and are generally considered markers of physician quality—though remember that even these have limitations.\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThe bottom line from the study's authors is simple and direct: \u003cstrong\u003e\"Online consumer ratings should not be used in isolation to select physicians, given their poor association with clinical performance.\"\u003c\/strong\u003e Healthcare decisions are too important to be made on the basis of a star rating that may reflect little more than whether a patient liked the office furniture or waited an extra fifteen minutes.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003c!-- ddn:faq:start --\u003e\n\u003ch2 id=\"ddn-faq\"\u003eFrequently Asked Questions\u003c\/h2\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eDo online doctor ratings predict the quality of care a doctor provides?\u003c\/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNo, according to a study of 78 specialists, online star ratings showed no meaningful relationship with objective measures of quality, value, or peer assessments. Among the lowest-performing doctors, only 5% to 32% had low online ratings, so the reviews usually failed to identify those with poor clinical performance.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eCan I use online reviews to choose a specialist?\u003c\/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study authors advise against using online consumer ratings alone to select a physician. Ratings did not predict clinical quality, cost-efficiency, or reputation among peers. Instead, ask your primary care doctor for a referral, look for board certification, and read the free-text comments for useful details about communication and office experience.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eWhy don't online doctor ratings match actual performance?\u003c\/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study found that online platforms offer no guidance on what patients should rate, so the results are hard to interpret. Ratings may reflect things like office friendliness or wait times rather than clinical skill. Across several platforms, correlation with performance measures was negligible, and even peer assessments did not align with stars.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eWhat should I do instead of relying on star ratings?\u003c\/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAsk your primary care doctor, who works with specialists regularly and knows their communication and quality of care. Look for doctors who follow Choosing Wisely recommendations to avoid unnecessary tests, and check hospital-level quality data, which may be more informative than individual physician ratings.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eAre hospital patient ratings more reliable than doctor ratings?\u003c\/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe article notes that patient ratings of hospitals have shown some ability to predict institutional outcomes, such as readmissions for heart attack, heart failure, and pneumonia. However, this validity does not translate to individual physicians, where online ratings failed to predict clinical performance.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eIs there anything useful in online reviews, like patient comments?\u003c\/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFree-text comments may give useful insights about communication style, office logistics, and interpersonal care, which are valuable aspects of patient experience. However, the star ratings themselves do not measure clinical quality, value, or peer reputation, so treat comments as one small piece of information.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c!-- ddn:faq:end --\u003e\n\n\u003ch2 id=\"source\"\u003eSource Information\u003c\/h2\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOriginal article title:\u003c\/strong\u003e Online physician ratings fail to predict actual performance on measures of quality, value, and peer review\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthors:\u003c\/strong\u003e Timothy J. Daskivich, Justin Houman, Garth Fuller, Jeanne T. Black, Hyung L. Kim, and Brennan Spiegel\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eJournal:\u003c\/strong\u003e Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (JAMIA), Volume 25, Issue 4, 2018, pages 401–407\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDOI:\u003c\/strong\u003e 10.1093\/jamia\/ocx083\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePublication dates:\u003c\/strong\u003e Received March 13, 2017; Revised May 18, 2017; Accepted August 21, 2017; Advance Access publication September 8, 2017\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\/Institutional review:\u003c\/strong\u003e The study was approved by the Cedars-Sinai Institutional Review Board (IRB) and was conducted as part of a larger initiative within the Cedars-Sinai health system to perform quality ratings of specialty physicians for the purpose of developing new provider narrow networks.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThis patient-friendly article is based on peer-reviewed research. It is intended for educational purposes and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult with a qualified healthcare professional regarding medical decisions.\u003c\/p\u003e","brand":"DiagnosticDetectives.Com","offers":[{"title":"Default Title","offer_id":47439672115356,"sku":null,"price":0.0,"currency_code":"EUR","in_stock":true}],"url":"https:\/\/diagnosticdetectives.sg\/products\/do-online-doctor-ratings-actually-tell-you-anything-study-says-no","provider":"DiagnosticDetectives.Com","version":"1.0","type":"link"}