39 * THERAPEUTIC USE OF COMPRESSION STOCKINGS FOR ORTHOSTATIC HYPOTENSION: AN ASSESSMENT OF PATIENT AND PHYSICIAN PERSPECTIVES AND PRACTICES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Elastic compression stockings (ECS) can be used as a non-pharmacological therapeutic option for older patients with orthostatic hypotension (OH). The aims of our study were to investigate the practices and perceptions of patients and physicians regarding the use of ECS for OH. Sampling methods: Two surveys were designed and piloted. The first was sent to 90 patients randomly sampled from department syncope department. This questionnaire included items related to frequency of use, issues related to non-compliance and patients' own assessment of the effectiveness of ECS. The second was sent to 69 consultant physicians in geriatric medicine in the Republic of Ireland. This included items relating to prescribing practices, perceived patient compliance and efficacy of ECS in OH. Results: 67 patients responded to the survey (response rate 74%). 64% were female, with a mean age (SD) of 75.1 years (10.5), range 45–91 years. 33% wore ECS daily while 43% never used them. Over half (51%) of the patients reported difficulty in application, 31% reported discomfort and 13% reported ECS were unhelpful for symptoms. More frequent use was associated with improvement in symptoms (p = 0.001). Those aged 75 years or older were more likely to report difficulty in application compared to those under 75 (p = 0.003). 48 physicians responded to the survey (response rate 70%). 89% prescribe ECS for OH, with 67% prescribing them before initiating pharmacological therapy. 53% chose thigh length class 2 compression strength. There were significant differences between the frequency of use reported by patients and predicted by physicians (p < 0.001), with physicians less likely to predict no use or daily use. 89% of physicians predicted that difficulty in application was the main reason for non-compliance. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that although prescribed frequently, the use of ECS in patients with OH is often limited by issues related to practicality. Physicians correctly predicted the main reasons for non-compliance although underestimated the scale of patient compliance with ECS.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".