SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

The recommendations of a consensus panel for the screening, diagnosis, and treatment of neurogenic orthostatic hypotension and associated supine hypertension.

J Neurol · 2017-01-03

DOI: 10.1007/s00415-016-8375-xPMID: 28050656

Open accessreview-article; Review; Consensus Statement; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

Neurogenic orthostatic hypotension (nOH) is common in patients with neurodegenerative disorders such as Parkinson's disease, multiple system atrophy, pure autonomic failure, dementia with Lewy bodies, and peripheral neuropathies including amyloid or diabetic neuropathy. Due to the frequency of nOH in the aging population, clinicians need to be well informed about its diagnosis and management. To date, studies of nOH have used different outcome measures and various methods of diagnosis, thereby preventing the generation of evidence-based guidelines to direct clinicians towards 'best practices' when treating patients with nOH and associated supine hypertension. To address these issues, the American Autonomic Society and the National Parkinson Foundation initiated a project to develop a statement of recommendations beginning with a consensus panel meeting in Boston on November 7, 2015, with continued communications and contributions to the recommendations through October of 2016. This paper summarizes the panel members' discussions held during the initial meeting along with continued deliberations among the panel members and provides essential recommendations based upon best available evidence as well as expert opinion for the (1) screening, (2) diagnosis, (3) treatment of nOH, and (4) diagnosis and treatment of associated supine hypertension.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.