(P 197) EVALUATION OF REVIEWS OF ORTHOPAEDIC ONCOLOGISTS ON INSTITUITIONAL AND PATIENT REVIEW WEBSITES

Objective: Online reviews of physicians have significantly increased with an increase in the number of independent websites in addition to institutional websites collecting patient reviews. In addition to reviews, websites may contain other information regarding the physician including their age, number of years in practice, location of practice and physicians in the area with a similar specialty. Orthopaedic oncology is a relatively small subspecialty in orthopaedic surgery. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the online reviews of orthopaeidc oncologists and to determine the accuracy of the information provided on the websites.

Methods: Orthopaedic oncologists were identified on the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) member search tool website. Any members that were not orthopaedic oncologists or were not actively practicing in the United States were excluded. A search was performed of all orthopaedic oncologists on their current institutional website, USNews, WebMD, Vitals.com, and Healthgrades. In addition to the quality and number of ratings and comments, the location listed on the MSTS website was compared to the location and specialty of the surgeon on the review websites. When similar physicians were suggested on the website, these were evaluated to determine whether they were orthopaedic oncologists or not.

Results: A total of 231 orthopaedic oncologists were identified on the MSTS website and met inclusion criteria. There were 185 males and 46 females with an average age of 51.9 (range 34-85). Two-hundred twenty-four were identified on institutional websites, 223 on USNews, 227 on WebMD, 224 on Vitals.com and 223 on Healthgrades. A total number of 53711 ratings were identified. Each surgeon had an average of 64.9 ratings (range 1-3652. The institutional websites had the largest number of ratings with 29475 and WebMD had the least with 3095. The overall average star rating was 4.5 with Vitals.com having the lowest rating at 4.4 and the institution the highest at 4.8. Individual star averages ranged from 2.95 to 5. There were 413 and 44 1- and 2-star reviews with comments, respectively. The institutional websites had the least number of 1-star reviews with 16, followed by WebMD with 37, Vitals.com with 163 and Healthgrades with 197. USNews does not include 1- or 2-star reviews with comments. The location of the surgeon compared to the MSTS website was accurate on 91.5% of the institutional websites, 82.5% on USNews, 71.8% on WebMD, 72.8% on Vitals.com and 82.5% on Healthgrades. The surgeon was identified as an orthopaedic oncologist on 84.8% of institutional websites, 83.9% on USNews, 40.5% on WebMD, 38.4% on Vitals.com and 0% on Healthgrades. Institutional websites did not offer any comparable surgeons whereas the majority of the websites identified surgeons other than orthopaedic oncologists. The average accuracy of identifying a comparable surgeon was 3.6%, with USNews identifying 8.2% of comparable surgeons, WebMD with 1.8%, Vitals.com with 1.2% and Healthgrades with 5.0%. There were no significant differences in the average ratings, or 1- and 2-star ratings based on age or gender.

Conclusion: In this current study, institutional websites were more accurate with identifying the physicians current location and specialty, whereas WebMD was the least accurate with location and Healthgrades was the least accurate identifying specialty. The institutional websites had the greatest number of reviews and the highest average star rating, whereas WebMD and Vitals.com had the least number of reviews and lowest rating, respectively. All patient review websites performed poorly in identifying comparable surgeons. Overall, institutional websites provided a more positive and accurate review of the surgeon and their practice compared to other review websites.