Evaluating the Impact of Orthostatic Syncope and Presyncope on Quality of Life: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Syncope (transient loss of consciousness and postural tone) and presyncope are common manifestations of autonomic dysfunction that are usually triggered by orthostasis. The global impact of syncope on quality of life (QoL) is unclear. In this systematic review, we report evidence on the impact of syncope and presyncope on QoL and QoL domains, identify key factors influencing QoL in patients with syncopal disorders, and combine available data to compare QoL between syncopal disorders and to population normative data. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search of academic databases (MEDLINE (PubMed), Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Embase) was conducted (February 2021) to identify peer-reviewed publications that evaluated the impact of vasovagal syncope (VVS), postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), or orthostatic hypotension (OH) on QoL. Two team members independently screened records for inclusion and extracted data relevant to the study objectives. RESULTS: = 2); 12 distinct QoL instruments were used. Comparisons of QoL scores between patients with syncope/presyncope and a control group were performed in 16 studies; significant QoL impairments in patients with syncope/presyncope were observed in all studies. Increased syncopal event frequency, increased autonomic symptom severity, and the presence of mental health disorders and/or comorbidities were associated with lower QoL scores. CONCLUSION: This review synthesizes the negative impact of syncope/presyncope on QoL and identifies research priorities to reduce the burden of these debilitating disorders and improve patient QoL.
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 | 0.013 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.024 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".