Online Patient Ratings of a Neuromuscular Outpatient Practice: A Retrospective Study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17161/rrnmf.v7i2_2026.25487Keywords:
Online physician reviews; patient satisfaction; patient experience; health care qualityAbstract
Objectives: Online physician ratings increasingly influence patient choice, yet their trustworthiness and generalizability remain uncertain, particularly in complex specialties such as neuromuscular medicine. Only 5% of patients post reviews, but nearly 40% use online feedback to select physicians.
Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 218 reviews with star ratings posted between May 2016 and June 2025 for a single outpatient neuromuscular practice. Identifiable reviewers were matched to practice records to append referral, diagnostic, and demographic data. Quantitative and thematic analyses were performed.
Results: Among 218 reviews, 182 (83.5%) were positive and 36 (16.5%) negative. Negative themes included feeling dismissed, perceived rudeness, and rushed visits, while positive reviews emphasized thoroughness and effective care. Identifiable negative reviewers were predominantly White female patients (mean age 41) who commonly reported overlapping symptoms including pain, fatigue, motor difficulties, and sensory disturbances. Anxiety or depression was reported in 44.4% of identifiable reviewers.
Conclusions: Online reviews primarily reflect patient experience rather than clinical quality of care or physician competence. Structural pressures—time constraints, diagnostic expectations, and tertiary-care complexity—likely shape negative feedback and should be considered when interpreting online ratings.
Downloads
References
1. Littrell A. Patients trust online reviews, but they don’t leave them [Internet]. Medical Economics. 2025 Feb 18 [cited 2025 Dec 1]. Available from: https://www.medicaleconomics.com/view/patients-trust-online-reviews-but-they-don-t-leave-them
2. Larywon KR, Mobilia TA, Goldberg BD, Cascino GA. The potential impact of negative online reviews on medical malpractice litigation and the important role a reputation management service can play [Internet]. Medical Liability Mutual Insurance Company. 2023 Mar 2 [cited 2025 Dec 1]. Available from: https://www.mlmic.com/blog/negative-online-reviews-2/
3. Kane L. Malpractice risks for neurologists: how to avoid a lawsuit [Internet]. MedCentral. 2025 Jul 1 [cited 2026 May 8]. Available from: https://www.medcentral.com/neurology/malpractice-risks-for-neurologists-how-to-avoid-a-lawsuit
4. Madson R. Online physician reviews don’t reflect responses in patient satisfaction surveys [Internet]. Mayo Clinic News Network. 2018 Apr 2 [cited 2026 May 8]. Available from: https://newsnetwork.mayoclinic.org/discussion/online-physician-reviews-dont-reflect-responses-in-patient-satisfaction-surveys/
5. Hanauer DA, Zheng K, Singer DC, Gebremariam A, Davis MM. Public awareness, perception, and use of online physician rating sites. JAMA. 2014;311(7):734-5. doi:10.1001/jama.2013.283194. PubMed PMID: 24549555.
6. Widmer RJ, Shepard M, Aase LA, Wald JT, Pruthi S, Timimi FK. The impact of social media on negative online physician reviews: an observational study in a large, academic, multispecialty practice. J Gen Intern Med. 2019;34(1):98-101. doi:10.1007/s11606-018-4720-3. PubMed PMID: 30374885; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6318187.
7. Richman EH, Ogbaudu E, Pollock JR, Brinkman JC, Moore ML, Arthur JR, et al. Characterizing negative online reviews of pediatric orthopaedic surgeons. J Pediatr Orthop. 2022;42(5):e533-e537. doi:10.1097/BPO.0000000000002121. PubMed PMID: 35200216.
8. Dunivin Z, Zadunayski L, Baskota U, Siek K, Mankoff J. Gender, soft skills, and patient experience in online physician reviews: a large-scale text analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(7):e14455. doi:10.2196/14455. PubMed PMID: 32729844; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7426798.
9. Goshtasbi K, Lehrich BM, Moshtaghi O, Abouzari M, Sahyouni R, Bagheri K, et al. Patients’ online perception and ratings of neurotologists. Otol Neurotol. 2019;40(1):139-143. doi:10.1097/MAO.0000000000002075. PubMed PMID: 30531643.
10. Narciso M. The unreliability of online review mechanisms. J Consum Policy (Dordr). 2022;45(3):349-368. doi:10.1007/s10603-022-09514-7. PubMed PMID: 35431375; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC9001162.
11. Tonelli M, Wiebe N, Manns BJ, Klarenbach SW, James MT, Ravani P, et al. Comparison of the complexity of patients seen by different medical subspecialists in a universal health care system. JAMA Netw Open. 2018;1(7):e184852. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.4852. PubMed PMID: 30646392; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6324421.
12. Wunderlich S. Why is it so hard to get a diagnosis? [Internet]. Quest. Muscular Dystrophy Association; 2023 May 11 [cited 2026 May 8]. Available from: https://mdaquest.org/why-is-it-so-hard-to-get-a-diagnosis/
13. Ricci G, Torri F, Bianchi F, Fontanelli L, Schirinzi E, Gualdani E, et al. Frailties and critical issues in neuromuscular diseases highlighted by SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: how many patients are still “invisible”? Acta Myol. 2022;41(1):24-29. doi:10.36185/2532-1900-065. PubMed PMID: 35465339; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC9004333.
14. Hochberg I, Allon R, Yom-Tov E. Assessment of the frequency of online searches for symptoms before diagnosis: analysis of archival data. J Med Internet Res. 2020 Mar 6;22(3):e15065. doi:10.2196/15065. PubMed PMID: 32141835; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7084283.
15. Bolton C, Goldsmith P. Complaints from patients with functional neurological disorders: a cross-sectional UK survey of why patients complain and the effect on the clinicians who look after them. BMJ Open. 2018;8(11):e021573. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-021573. PubMed PMID: 30413498; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6231557.
16. Social Security Administration. Disability insurance award and termination rates, 2024 [Internet]. Baltimore (MD): Social Security Administration; 2024 [cited 2026 May 8]. Available from: https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/di_asr/2024/sect03.html
17. Baldini V, Varallo G, Nuredini A, Tupler R, Plazzi G, De Ronchi D, et al. The psychological burden of neuromuscular diseases: a narrative review of anxiety, depression, coping, and quality of life. Muscles. 2025;4(4):59. doi:10.3390/muscles4040059. PubMed PMID: 41441446; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC12736145.
18. Stretanski MF, Kopitnik NL, Matha A, et al. Chronic pain. Updated 2025 Sep 28. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2026 Jan–. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK553030/
19. Kavalnienė R, Deksnyte A, Kasiulevičius V, Šapoka V, Aranauskas R, Aranauskas L. Patient satisfaction with primary healthcare services: are there any links with patients’ symptoms of anxiety and depression? BMC Fam Pract. 2018;19(1):90. doi:10.1186/s12875-018-0780-z. PubMed PMID: 29921234; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6009850.
20. Osman H, Adamji Z, Lintern S, Smith IC, Grant A, Lessard LER, et al. Counting the cost: the hidden financial realities of neuromuscular disease through patient and family perspectives. Health Expect. 2025;28(6):e70529. doi:10.1111/hex.70529. PubMed PMID: 41405177; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC12710084.
21. Eccles JA, Davies KA. The challenges of chronic pain and fatigue. Clin Med (Lond). 2021;21(1):19-27. doi:10.7861/clinmed.2020-1009. PubMed PMID: 33479064; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7850224.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Dr. Aziz Shaibani , Jannat Hussain , Alexis Taylor
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
