Background: Physician review websites have influence on a patient’s selection of a provider. Written reviews are subjective and difficult to quantitatively analyze. Sentiment analysis of writing can quantitatively assess surgeon reviews to provide actionable feedback for surgeons to improve practice. The objective of this study is to quantitatively analyze large subset of written reviews of hand surgeons using sentiment analysis and report unbiased trends in words used to describe the reviewed surgeons and biases associated with surgeon demographic factors. Methods: Online written and star-rating reviews of hand surgeons were obtained from healthgrades.com and webmd.com . A sentiment analysis package was used to calculate compound scores of all reviews. Mann-Whitney U tests were performed to determine the relationship between demographic variables and average sentiment score of written reviews. Positive and negative word and word-pair frequency analysis was also performed. Results: A total of 786 hand surgeons’ reviews were analyzed. Analysis showed a significant relationship between the sentiment scores and overall average star-rated reviews ( r2 = 0.604, P ≤ .01). There was no significant difference in review sentiment by provider sex; however, surgeons aged 50 years and younger had more positive reviews than older ( P < .01). The most frequently used bigrams used to describe top-rated surgeons were associated with good bedside manner and efficient pain management, whereas those with the worst reviews are often characterized as rude and unable to relieve pain. Conclusions: This study provides insight into both demographic and behavioral factors contributing to positive reviews and reinforces the importance of pain expectation management.

Study Design A Sentiment Analysis of online reviews of spine surgeons. Objectives Physician review websites have significant impact on a patient’s provider selection. Written reviews are subjective, but sentiment analysis through machine learning can quantitatively analyze these reviews. This study analyzes online written reviews of spine surgeons and reports biases associated with demographic factors and trends in words utilized. Methods Online written and star-reviews of spine surgeons were obtained from healthgrades.com . A sentiment analysis package was used to analyze the written reviews. The relationship of demographic variables to these scores was analyzed with t-tests and word and bigram frequency analyses were performed. Additionally, a multiple regression analysis was performed on key terms. Results 8357 reviews of 480 surgeons were analyzed. There was a significant difference between the means of sentiment analysis scores and star scores for both gender and age. Younger, male surgeons were rated more highly on average ( P < .01). Word frequency analysis indicated that behavioral factors and pain were the main contributing factors to both the best and worst reviewed surgeons. Additionally, several clinically relevant words, when included in a review, affected the odds of a positive review. Conclusions The best reviews laud surgeons for their ability to manage pain and for exhibiting positive bedside manner. However, the worst reviews primarily focus on pain and its management, as exhibited by the frequency and multivariate analysis. Pain is a clear contributing factor to reviews, thus emphasizing the importance of establishing proper pain expectations prior to any intervention.

No abstract

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study. Objectives: Spinal epidural abscess (SEA) is a rare but potentially life-threatening infection treated with antimicrobials and, in most cases, immediate surgical decompression. Previous studies comparing medical and surgical management of SEA are low powered and limited to a single institution. As such, the present study compares readmission in surgical and non-surgical management using a large national dataset. Methods: We identified all hospital admissions for SEA using the Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD), which is the largest collection of hospital admissions data. Patients were grouped into surgically and non-surgically managed cohorts using ICD-10 coding and compared using information retrieved from the NRD such as demographics, comorbidities, length of stay and cost of admission. Results: We identified 350 surgically managed and 350 non-surgically managed patients. The 90-day readmission rates for surgical and non-surgical management were 26.0% and 35.1%, respectively ( P < .05). Expectedly, surgical management was associated with a significantly higher charge and length of stay at index hospital admission. Surgically managed patients had a significantly lower risk of readmission for osteomyelitis ( P < .05). Finally, in patients with a low comorbidity burden, we observed a significantly lower 90-day readmission rate for surgically managed patients (surgical: 23.0%, non-surgical: 33.8%, P < .05). Conclusion: In patients with a low comorbidity burden, we observed a significantly lower readmission rate for surgically managed patients than non-surgically managed patients. The results of this study suggest a lower readmission rate as an advantage to surgical management of SEA and emphasize the importance of SEA as a not-to-miss diagnosis.

Machine learning and artificial intelligence have seen tremendous growth in recent years and have been applied in numerous studies in the field of orthopaedics.Machine learning will soon become critical in the day-to-day operations of orthopaedic practice; therefore, it is imperative that providers become accustomed to and familiar with not only the terminology but also the fundamental techniques behind the technology.A foundation of knowledge regarding machine learning is critical for physicians so they can begin to understand the details in the algorithms that are being developed, which provide improved accuracy compared with clinicians, decreased time required, and a heightened ability to triage patients.

Study Design Comparative Analysis and Narrative Review. Objective To assess and compare ChatGPT’s responses to the clinical questions and recommendations proposed by The 2011 North American Spine Society (NASS) Clinical Guideline for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis (LSS). We explore the advantages and disadvantages of ChatGPT’s responses through an updated literature review on spinal stenosis. Methods We prompted ChatGPT with questions from the NASS Evidence-based Clinical Guidelines for LSS and compared its generated responses with the recommendations provided by the guidelines. A review of the literature was performed via PubMed, OVID, and Cochrane on the diagnosis and treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis between January 2012 and April 2023. Results 14 questions proposed by the NASS guidelines for LSS were uploaded into ChatGPT and directly compared to the responses offered by NASS. Three questions were on the definition and history of LSS, one on diagnostic tests, seven on non-surgical interventions and three on surgical interventions. The review process found 40 articles that were selected for inclusion that helped corroborate or contradict the responses that were generated by ChatGPT. Conclusions ChatGPT’s responses were similar to findings in the current literature on LSS. These results demonstrate the potential for implementing ChatGPT into the spine surgeon’s workplace as a means of supporting the decision-making process for LSS diagnosis and treatment. However, our narrative summary only provides a limited literature review and additional research is needed to standardize our findings as means of validating ChatGPT’s use in the clinical space.

No abstract

No abstract