MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4304822984 · doi:10.3389/fcvm.2022.1016420

Counter pressure maneuvers for syncope prevention: A semi-systematic review and meta-analysis

2022· review· en· W4304822984 on OpenAlexafffund
Erin L. Williams, Farhaan Muhammad Khan, Victoria E. Claydon

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Syncope and Autonomic Disorders
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersHeart and Stroke Foundation of British Columbia and YukonHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisSyncope (phonology)CardiologyIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Physical counter pressure maneuvers (CPM) are movements that are recommended to delay or prevent syncope (fainting) by recruiting the skeletal muscle pump to augment cardiovascular control. However, these recommendations are largely based on theoretical benefit, with limited data evaluating the efficacy of CPM to prevent syncope in the real-world setting. We conducted a semi-systematic literature review and meta-analysis to assess CPM efficacy, identify literature gaps, and highlight future research needs. Articles were identified through a literature search (PubMed, April 2022) of peer-reviewed publications evaluating the use of counter pressure or other lower body maneuvers to prevent syncope. Two team members independently screened records for inclusion and extracted data. From 476 unique records identified by the search, 45 met inclusion criteria. Articles considered various syncopal conditions (vasovagal = 12, orthostatic hypotension = 8, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome = 1, familial dysautonomia = 2, spinal cord injury = 1, blood donation = 10, healthy controls = 11). Maneuvers assessed included hand gripping, leg fidgeting, stepping, tiptoeing, marching, calf raises, postural sway, tensing (upper, lower, whole body), leg crossing, squatting, “crash” position, and bending foreword. CPM were assessed in laboratory-based studies (N = 28), the community setting (N = 4), both laboratory and community settings (N = 3), and during blood donation (N = 10). CPM improved standing systolic blood pressure (+ 14.8 ± 0.6 mmHg, p < 0.001) and heart rate (+ 1.4 ± 0.5 bpm, p = 0.006), however, responses of total peripheral resistance, stroke volume, or cerebral blood flow were not widely documented. Most patients experienced symptom improvement following CPM use (laboratory: 60 ± 4%, community: 72 ± 9%). The most prominent barrier to employing CPM in daily living was the inability to recognize an impending faint. Patterns of postural sway may also recruit the skeletal muscle pump to enhance cardiovascular control, and its potential as a discrete, proactive CPM needs further evaluation. Physical CPM were successful in improving syncopal symptoms and producing cardiovascular responses that may bolster against syncope; however, practical limitations may restrict applicability for use in daily living.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.031
Bibliometrics0.0100.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Cardiovascular MedicineSame topicCardiovascular Syncope and Autonomic DisordersFrench-language works237,207