Evaluating Factors Influencing Patient Reviews: Variations in Professional Credentials and Demographics of Orthopedic Oncologists

Background Orthopedic oncology depends on strong patient-provider relationships and advanced expertise. Patients in this specialized and nuanced field rely on online platforms, such as U.S. News & World Report (USNWR), to guide their decision-making. While these platforms provide insights into patient satisfaction, they may fail to capture critical nuances such as academic background, research focus, and training recency. This study aims to evaluate the influence of U.S. News physician ratings on patient perceptions of orthopedic oncologists and their correlation with professional credentials. Methods This retrospective analysis identified 312 fellowship-trained active American orthopedic oncologists through ACGME-accredited orthopedic surgery residency programs and the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society. Ratings of 228 physicians were obtained from USNWR using Press Ganey analytics and normalized with calculated Bayesian (weighted) averages. Statistical analyses used Mann-Whitney U tests for two-group comparisons and Kruskal-Wallis tests for comparisons with >2 groups. When Kruskal-Wallis tests were significant, post-hoc pairwise Mann-Whitney U tests with Holm adjustment were performed. Results Non-academic physicians received significantly higher overall patient satisfaction scores than their academically appointed counterparts. Notably, physicians with PhDs had significantly lower ratings in categories such as follow-up care, time spent with patients, attitude, inclusion in decision-making, and overall feedback. Recent residency graduates (2011-2020) demonstrated significantly higher ratings in clarity of instructions, provider follow-up, and provider attitude compared to earlier cohorts (P<0.05). Conclusion Patients appear to prioritize factors including accessibility and communication, favoring non-academic physicians and recently trained providers. Lower patient experience scores observed among PhD-trained physicians may reflect differences in practice structure, patient expectations, or unmeasured confounding, although this warrants further study. Limitations include incomplete and variable review data. Though U.S. News ratings provide valuable insights, they may not fully reflect the multifaceted nature of quality care in orthopedic oncology. A more comprehensive model, incorporating clinical outcomes, peer assessments, and patient-reported experiences, is essential to understanding and improving patient satisfaction with clinician practice and characteristics.