Are Compression Stockings an Effective Treatment for Orthostatic Presyncope?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Syncope, or fainting, affects approximately 6.2% of the population, and is associated with significant comorbidity. Many syncopal events occur secondary to excessive venous pooling and capillary filtration in the lower limbs when upright. As such, a common approach to the management of syncope is the use of compression stockings. However, research confirming their efficacy is lacking. We aimed to investigate the effect of graded calf compression stockings on orthostatic tolerance. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We evaluated orthostatic tolerance (OT) and haemodynamic control in 15 healthy volunteers wearing graded calf compression stockings compared to two placebo stockings in a randomized, cross-over, double-blind fashion. OT (time to presyncope, min) was determined using combined head-upright tilting and lower body negative pressure applied until presyncope. Throughout testing we continuously monitored beat-to-beat blood pressures, heart rate, stroke volume and cardiac output (finger plethysmography), cerebral and forearm blood flow velocities (Doppler ultrasound) and breath-by-breath end tidal gases. There were no significant differences in OT between compression stocking (26.0±2.3 min) and calf (29.3±2.4 min) or ankle (27.6±3.1 min) placebo conditions. Cardiovascular, cerebral and respiratory responses were similar in all conditions. The efficacy of compression stockings was related to anthropometric parameters, and could be predicted by a model based on the subject's calf circumference and shoe size (r = 0.780, p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: These data question the use of calf compression stockings for orthostatic intolerance and highlight the need for individualised therapy accounting for anthropometric variables when considering treatment with compression stockings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".