Dermatology: Practical and Conceptual Commentary | Dermatol Pract Concept. 2023;13(2):e2023073 1 Importance of Board-Certified Dermatologist Online Reviews: Small Steps to Improve Patient Experiences and Perspectives Julianne M. Falotico1, Shari R. Lipner2 1 Renaissance School of Medicine at Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, USA 2 Weill Cornell Medicine, Department of Dermatology, New York, NY, USA Citation: Falotico JM, Lipner SR. Importance of Board-Certified Dermatologist Online Reviews: Small Steps to Improve Patient Experiences and Perspectives. Dermatol Pract Concept. 2023;13(2):e2023073. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5826/dpc.1302a73 Accepted: September 13, 2022; Published: April 2023 Copyright: ©2023 Falotico et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (BY-NC-4.0), https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/, which permits unrestricted noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original authors and source are credited. Funding: None. Competing Interests: Ms. Falotico has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Lipner has served as a consultant for Ortho Dermatologics, Verrica, Hoth Therapeutics, BelleTorus Corporation, and Hexima. Authorship: All authors have contributed significantly to this publication. Corresponding Author: Shari R. Lipner MD, PhD 1305 York Avenue, NY, NY 10021. Phone: 646-962-3376 Fax: 646-962-0033 Email: shl9032@med.cornell.edu Online physician reviews and ratings are becoming increas- ingly popular, potentially influencing prospective patients and their decisions regarding where to seek dermatologic care [1]. Cosmetic dermatologists, in particular, may rely heavily on online profiles to attract patients [2]. Previ- ous work found significantly higher proportions of nega- tive online reviews of dermatology (20.4%-32.7%) versus non-dermatology (4.7%-8.5%) practices performing botu- linum toxin injections (P < 0.0001) [3]. In this commentary, we review digital review trends and make recommendations to improve online reviews of board-certified dermatologists. Waqas et al [4] analyzed online ratings of 167 dermatol- ogists and found that the lowest average ratings in the most and least dermatologist-dense areas were on Yelp (3.61) and Google (3.45), respectively. Ratings on healthcare versus general consumer websites were closer to the overall average (4.06) and had a higher degree of correlation across sites. Therefore, healthcare versus general consumer websites may more accurately reflect authentic patient experiences. Waqas et al [5] also analyzed dermatologist reviews across five websites and found no differences in achieving higher ratings for males versus females [odds ratio (OR):1.56; P = 0.226]. There was a greater likelihood of higher rat- ings in dermatologist-dense areas (OR: 2.61; P = 0.48) and lower ratings with increased years of experience (OR: 0.96; P = 0.006). Therefore, patients reported greater satisfaction with younger dermatologists in urban areas, which may be due to their spending more time with patients and using newer technologies. We postulate that younger patients, who are more comfortable using the internet, may be more likely to utilize online reviews. Older patients may need encourage- ment and guidance to write online reviews. Trager et al [6] analyzed 12,272 online ratings of 187 Mohs micrographic surgeons and found that of 5,255 2 Commentary | Dermatol Pract Concept. 2023;13(2):e2023073 written comments, the majority (87%) were positive and most discussed perceived experiences [50.2%; 95% confi- dence interval (CI): 49%-52%] and bedside manner (33.2%; 95% CI: 32%-34%). Therefore, the content of written re- views may give insight into the things that matter most to patients. Riemer et al [7] analyzed online ratings of 100 derma- tologists, reporting that the mean ratings across all five web- sites were high (3.60-4.58). Zocdoc.com had significantly fewer negative comments than other websites (χ2 = 12.02; P = 0.007) and had the highest overall total (1231) and mean ratings per dermatologist (102.6), with notifications built in to solicit patient reviews. Therefore, encouraging patients to share their experiences may help negate the impact of outlier reviews when the overall volume is low. First impressions from online reviews may impact where patients choose dermatological care and current reviews may not be entirely indicative of true patient experiences. We sug- gest analyzing ratings and content on healthcare-specific ver- sus consumer websites to better gauge patient experiences and overall satisfaction. Since patients emphasize bedside manner in their reviews, delivering exceptional patient care as well as clear communication and relatability will likely improve patient satisfaction and translate to improved on- line ratings. Since the overwhelming majority of patients probably have positive visits with dermatologists, it is help- ful to encourage patients to write reviews and share their experiences. Future studies should analyze reviews in the context of patient demographics, as differing priorities and expectations may contribute to perceived experiences and dermatologist ratings. References 1. Smith RJ, Lipoff JB. Evaluation of dermatology practice online reviews: lessons from qualitative analysis. JAMA Dermatol. 2016;152(2):153-157. DOI: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2015.3950. PMID: 26606326. 2. Wang JV, Heitmiller K, Boen M, Saedi N. Fake Online Physi- cian Reviews in Aesthetic Dermatology: Bioethical and Pro- fessional Obligations. Dermatol Surg. 2021;47(5):748-749. DOI: 10.1097/DSS.0000000000002516. PMID: 33905402. 3. Avila C, Pootrakul L, Shipp D, Massick S, Kaffenberger B. Der- matologist online ratings for botulinum toxin injections are nu- anced and may be misleading. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021;85(5): 1313-1315. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.09.045. PMID: 32956739. 4. Waqas B, Cooley V, Lipner SR. Comparison of Dermatologist Ratings on Health Care-Specific and General Consumer Web- sites. Cutis. 2021;107(4):182-184. DOI: 10.12788/cutis.0220. PMID: 34096845. 5. Waqas B, Cooley V, Lipner SR. Association of sex, location, and experience with online patient ratings of dermatologists. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020;83(3):954-955. DOI: 10.1016/j .jaad.2020.01.055. PMID: 32006602. 6. Trager MH, Ensslin CE, Fan W, Samie FH. Factors impacting patient ratings of Mohs micrographic surgeons: Lessons gleaned from analysis of 17,527 online reviews. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020;83(6):1825-1827. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.05.082. PMID: 32450101. 7. Riemer C, Doctor M, Dellavalle RP. Analysis of Online Ratings of Dermatologists. JAMA Dermatol. 2016;152(2):218-219. DOI: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2015.4991. PMID: 26677133.