They're out there, in good number, those websites that offer to rate the performance of doctors, and hence impact the likelihood that we may choose them over other, unrated, doctors.
And there also seem to be a good number of websites out there that call into question the reliability of such websites, pointing out their possible deficiencies.
While I'm certain that we here, due to our likely extensive PCa-treatment experiences, are well aware that online doctor evaluation ("doctor-rater") websites and their offerings must be taken with the proverbial grain of salt, there are others who may blindly trust the first doctor-rater website they consult. So identifying the possible inadequacies of such websites, as some "watchdog" websites do, is a good thing.
This site, sponsored by U.S. News, presents, I think, a good discussion of some of the issues that need to be kept in mind when using a doctor-rater website: https://health.usnews.com/health-care/patient-advice/articles/rating-doctors-what-you-need-to-know#:~:text=propublica%20is%20one%20of%20a%20wide%20range%20of,systems%20post%20consumer%20reviews%20based%20on%20patient%20surveys.
From it: "... (there is) a wide range of doctor rating sites available to consumers online. Some websites, like ProPublica, post objective medical performance measures. Other websites like Healthgrades and Yelp post star ratings and comments written by patients. A growing number of health care systems post consumer reviews based on patient surveys."
Interesting side note. I discovered that the ProPublica site just referenced above has what it calls a ProPublica Surgeon Scorecard, which can serve as a relevant example of how such a website rates doctors and medical facilities. That is, if one goes to: https://projects.propublica.org/surgeons/
and follows the appropriate links, one can find what the site offers as complication rates for prostate removal and prostate resection, organized by state and by doctor and hospital across the U.S.
But back to the article:"Nearly 60 percent of patients say they like to use online reviews when searching for a physician, according to a research letter published by the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2017."
"(But) you never know who's writing these (evaluations) ... It could be the doctor, or his friends and family members. It could be a patient who had an unusually good or bad experience, or someone who has a conflict with the doctor that has nothing to do with medical care, something like a land dispute. It could be Russian bots. It's the Wild West. Buyer beware."
Other problematic issues identified are things like: selectivity in posting reviews, affecting their objectivity; or too few reviews used to accurately or fairly reflect a doctor's performance.
Also,"But many doctors don't have any online reviews. For example, 34 percent of 600 physicians from Boston, Dallas and Portland, Oregon, did not have a review on any of 28 websites sampled by the authors of the JAMA research letter."
And"There's no uniform standard regarding what quality information such sites should display or how consumers should consider such information when searching for a health care provider."
"... most of the websites provided overall performance results on clinical outcomes rather than the overall patient experience; performance data were often several years old; websites often lacked condition-specific or clinician-specific measures, which are of great interest to consumers; few websites provided information about legal actions such as malpractice allegations and none of the websites posted measures or quality information in languages other than English."
The above article then concludes by offering some tips on how to go about
choosing a physician: rely on recommendations from family or trusted people, investigate the volume of work that a doctor does, which can be an indicator of how good they are; and check websites of state medical boards for any comments about
But to sum up this discussion, websites that evaluate doctors should be subject themselves to evaluation.