Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from a national spine registry will be used to compare and contrast the opinions of patients with those of doctors on physician review sites (PRWs). Patients often rely on PRWs when deciding which medical professional to see, but some of these tools also factor in personal opinions that have nothing to do with a surgeon’s actual clinical abilities. Because of this, their value in guiding medical judgments is still up in the air. The Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) was used to analyse the outcomes of 8834 individuals who had elective lumbar spine surgery at a single level. With the help of patient reported outcomes (PROs) (Oswestry Disability Index, EuroQOL, Numerical Rating Scale—back/leg pain, and patient satisfaction), the lumbar module of QOD was queried to rank 124 surgeons. Healthgrades, Vitals, WebMD, and Google were among the PRWs pitted against the QOD PRO-ranking system. Statistical analysis included multiple linear regression models, Kruskal-Wallis tests, and Spearman correlation coefficients. The key result was a comparison of PRW ratings to patient-reported outcomes. The coefficients between the 3 PROs (Oswestry Disability Index, EuroQOL, and Numerical Rating Scale back/leg) used to generate the surgeon’s rating ranged from 0.70 to 0.88, indicating excellent intercorrelation congruence. Rankings based on PROs had weak correlations (0.23 to 0.37) with PRWs. While the association between Healthgrades and patient satisfaction is modest at (ρ=0.37)., it is the strongest of any PRO-derived grading system. PRWs are frequently used to assess surgeon competency; however, our findings show that they have a low correlation with PROs that measure a surgeon’s clinical ability. The patient, the payer, and the administrator should all proceed with caution when using PRWs to make health care choices.