Review Impact of Exercise to Treat Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome: A Systematic Review, 2025, Cortez et al

Impact of Exercise to Treat Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome: A Systematic Review

Melissa M Cortez, Kayla Aikins, Amy C Arnold, Jeffrey R Boris, Todd E Davenport, Katie Johnson, Hagar S Kattaya, Laurence Kinsella, Mary M McFarland, Ryan Pelo, Clayton D Powers, Kelsi Schiltz, Lauren E. Stiles, Lauren Ziaks, Tae Hwan Chung, Claudia DalMolin

Background
Postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) is a chronic condition associated with a high symptom burden and decreased quality of life (QOL). Exercise is currently considered to be a first line non-pharmacological treatment for POTS. The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the impact of exercise on cardiovascular and patient-centered outcomes in patients with POTS.

Purpose
To evaluate whether exercise benefits patients with POTS by synthesizing data from published clinical studies.

Methods
Electronic databases, including Medline, Embase, CINAHL Complete, Cochrane CENTRAL, and others were searched and results were exported on May 2, 2023. Study inclusion: those that utilized an exercise program as an intervention for POTS and were conducted as experimental or quasi-experimental design.

Exclusions
Non-English language papers and opinion-based/theoretical/non-empirical studies/case reports. Data extraction was based on Cochrane Handbook guidance and summarized according to Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) guidelines; methodological quality and risk of bias was evaluated using the JBI Critical Appraisal tools. Standardized effects were calculated and summarized based on the direction of effect.

Results
Seven studies included in the final review are described in the data summary and synthesis. Improvements in heart rate were reported across all studies reviewed, while stroke volume and QOL improvements were also found. Notably, not all studies reported on the latter two outcomes. Methodological variability across studies precluded meta-analysis, and risk of bias was considered moderate-high in all but a single study.

Link (Frontiers in Neurology) [Provisionally accepted, only abstract right now)

 

Very strong feel of Theranos 'showing' that their machines work by testing behind closed doors and bringing you the results. You can trust them. Why would they just fake them? Other than having promised for literally decades that this works.

Are the exams to work in this industry open book and time-unlimited, too? Done in teams with the answer sheet? Then self-graded? Why even bother with this process when you can simply report an opinion as fact? Just skip all the theater, then.

 

Yet we’re going to use exercise as the first line treatment!