SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Prevalence and screening of orthostatic hypotension in older adults presenting to the emergency department: A systematic review.

Int Emerg Nurs · 2026-04-13

DOI: 10.1016/j.ienj.2026.101805PMID: 41980511

Check source for accessSystematic Review; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

BackgroundOrthostatic hypotension (OH) affects up to one in five older adults, yet its prevalence and screening practices in emergency departments (EDs) remain poorly characterised. This systematic review synthesised evidence on OH prevalence, screening rates, and clinical outcomes among older adults presenting to the ED.MethodsFour databases were searched on 9 July 2025, no date restrictions were applied. Studies involving adults aged ≥ 65 years presenting to the ED reporting OH prevalence or screening rates were included. Methodological quality was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools.ResultsSix studies encompassing 2543 older adults presenting to the ED with falls, syncope, or dizziness across five countries met inclusion criteria. OH screening rates varied from 5 to 100% and prevalence ranged from 5 to 42%. Secondary outcomes included hospital admission rates (26-48%), traumatic complications (16-37%), and associations with Parkinson's disease and cardiovascular medications. Intra-ED mortality was less than 1% in one study; 24-month mortality was 11% in a separate syncope cohort.ConclusionFindings reveal gaps between clinical guidelines recommending routine OH screening in at-risk populations and current practice. Elevated OH prevalence among both falls and syncope presentations supports targeted, risk-stratified screening approaches. Quality improvement initiatives and implementation research may improve outcomes for older adults presenting to the ED.

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.