↓ Skip to main content

Postural tachycardia syndrome: current perspectives

Overview of attention for article published in Vascular Health and Risk Management, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
33 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
117 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Postural tachycardia syndrome: current perspectives
Published in
Vascular Health and Risk Management, December 2017
DOI 10.2147/vhrm.s127393
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rachel Wells, Andrew J Spurrier, Dominik Linz, Celine Gallagher, Rajiv Mahajan, Prashanthan Sanders, Amanda Page, Dennis H Lau

Abstract

Postural tachycardia syndrome (POTS) is the combination of an exaggerated heart rate response to standing, in association with symptoms of lightheadedness or pre-syncope that improve when recumbent. The condition is often associated with fatigue and brain fog, resulting in significant disruptions at a critical time of diagnosis in adolescence and young adulthood. The heterogeneity of the underlying pathophysiology and the variable response to therapeutic interventions make management of this condition challenging for both patients and physicians alike. Here, we aim to review the factors and mechanisms that may contribute to the symptoms and signs of POTS and to present our perspectives on the clinical approach toward the diagnosis and management of this complex syndrome.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 33 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 117 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 117 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 20 17%
Researcher 12 10%
Student > Master 12 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 9%
Other 9 8%
Other 21 18%
Unknown 32 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 4%
Engineering 3 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 21 18%
Unknown 35 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 August 2023.
All research outputs
#2,071,820
of 25,380,089 outputs
Outputs from Vascular Health and Risk Management
#56
of 800 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,114
of 428,009 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Vascular Health and Risk Management
#1
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,380,089 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 800 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 428,009 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them