Title |
The recommendations of a consensus panel for the screening, diagnosis, and treatment of neurogenic orthostatic hypotension and associated supine hypertension
|
---|---|
Published in |
Journal of Neurology, January 2017
|
DOI | 10.1007/s00415-016-8375-x |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Christopher H. Gibbons, Peter Schmidt, Italo Biaggioni, Camille Frazier-Mills, Roy Freeman, Stuart Isaacson, Beverly Karabin, Louis Kuritzky, Mark Lew, Phillip Low, Ali Mehdirad, Satish R. Raj, Steven Vernino, Horacio Kaufmann |
Abstract |
Neurogenic orthostatic hypotension (nOH) is common in patients with neurodegenerative disorders such as Parkinson's disease, multiple system atrophy, pure autonomic failure, dementia with Lewy bodies, and peripheral neuropathies including amyloid or diabetic neuropathy. Due to the frequency of nOH in the aging population, clinicians need to be well informed about its diagnosis and management. To date, studies of nOH have used different outcome measures and various methods of diagnosis, thereby preventing the generation of evidence-based guidelines to direct clinicians towards 'best practices' when treating patients with nOH and associated supine hypertension. To address these issues, the American Autonomic Society and the National Parkinson Foundation initiated a project to develop a statement of recommendations beginning with a consensus panel meeting in Boston on November 7, 2015, with continued communications and contributions to the recommendations through October of 2016. This paper summarizes the panel members' discussions held during the initial meeting along with continued deliberations among the panel members and provides essential recommendations based upon best available evidence as well as expert opinion for the (1) screening, (2) diagnosis, (3) treatment of nOH, and (4) diagnosis and treatment of associated supine hypertension. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 5 | 33% |
France | 2 | 13% |
Ireland | 1 | 7% |
United Kingdom | 1 | 7% |
Unknown | 6 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 9 | 60% |
Scientists | 3 | 20% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 13% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Brazil | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 363 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 37 | 10% |
Other | 35 | 10% |
Researcher | 35 | 10% |
Student > Bachelor | 30 | 8% |
Student > Master | 21 | 6% |
Other | 74 | 20% |
Unknown | 132 | 36% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 118 | 32% |
Neuroscience | 22 | 6% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 17 | 5% |
Engineering | 8 | 2% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 2% |
Other | 44 | 12% |
Unknown | 149 | 41% |