Start here
This site collects research findings about POTS, dysautonomia and related conditions. A language model read 11,519 papers found through PubMed and Europe PMC, published 2019 to 2026. It read the full text of 6,822 papers and only the abstract of the other 4,697. It pulled out 148,186 short findings. Each finding comes with a quote from its paper and a link to it. No person has checked each finding yet. It is a map of what papers report, not medical advice.
What you can do here
- Search Look up a symptom, drug, test or gene and read the findings that name it.
- Connections See a map of every paper, grouped by what it reports, and follow papers from topic to finding.
- Signals See where papers disagree, what was tested and found nothing, and what has barely been studied.
- Analyze Count findings by year, condition or study type, and make your own chart.
- Chat Ask a question in plain words and get an answer that cites the papers. You need your own AI key.
What the papers study most
Topics in POTS findings
Papers with a POTS finding that names the topic. Spellings of the same name are counted together. A related measure, such as orthostatic heart rate, is counted on its own.
- Heart rate57 papers
- Ivabradine55 papers
- Norepinephrine55 papers
- Midodrine38 papers
- Fludrocortisone24 papers
- Propranolol23 papers
- Pyridostigmine23 papers
Conditions in the same papers
Of the 963 papers with a POTS finding, how many also have findings labelled with each condition.
- Dysautonomia314 papers
- Long COVID302 papers
- ME/CFS163 papers
- EDS and hypermobility155 papers
- MCAS (this label also covers mast-cell lab studies)114 papers
A count shows how often something was studied. It does not show that it works, that it matters most, or that one condition causes another.
Where the papers do not line up
Possible splits
possible splits, for every condition: papers that report the same thing higher in some and lower in others, or an effect in some and none in others. They count any result the model tagged as a comparison between groups. Many answer different questions, so read both sides. See all possible splits
Among papers that compare people with POTS to healthy people, no topic has a clear split yet: none has three such papers on each side. In related conditions, the splits we found mix different diseases, animal studies or different measures, so we do not show one as an example.
Tested and found nothing
- Intravenous immunoglobulin, as a treatment for POTS: one randomized trial found no effect on at least one outcome.
- Ganglionic acetylcholine receptor antibody, as a marker in POTS: 2 studies found no difference on at least one measure.
A study that finds nothing may have been small, or used a different dose or group. It is still worth knowing. Examples here come from trials and other studies of patients, not case reports or reviews. All 19,245 null results, for every condition
Barely studied
- Guanfacine (a chemical, hormone or drug) in POTS: 5 findings from only 3 papers.
With so few papers, a result could be chance. It could also be a lead that needs testing again. All 9,033 barely studied topics, for every condition (the table lists the 5,000 with the most findings)
These examples come from the Signals tables for findings labelled POTS, with extra checks so each one is a clear case. Retracted papers and correction notices are left out.
How to read a finding
Water bolus ingestion had no significant effect on heart rate in patients with POTS in the seated or supine position.
“Similarly, water bolus ingestion had no significant HR effects on patients with POTS (Figure 3C) in the seated or supine position (MD, −1.40 [95% CI, −5.39 to 2.58]; I2=0%).”
- The first line is the model's short summary of one result from one paper.
- The tags show the topic, which way it went, the condition and the type of study.
- The quote should be copied from the paper. In our check, about 96 in 100 quotes were found in the paper, word for word or nearly. A few are the model's rewording, so check the paper.
- The link at the bottom opens the paper. Read it before you rely on a finding. It says who was studied, how many people, and how.
Limits
- A language model pulled out every finding, and it makes mistakes. In a check of 132,295 quotes from the first four data packages, 127,041 were found in the paper. No person has yet checked that each finding says what its paper found.
- Papers were found by searches of PubMed and Europe PMC. Most were published in 2021 or later (11,405 papers). Only 112 are older, from 2019 and 2020. If a finding is missing, its paper may not be in this set.
- 10 retracted papers and 5 correction notices are hidden by default. Their 162 findings are kept for the record but left out of the lists on this page and the Signals tables.
- Two topics in the same papers are studied together. That does not mean one causes the other.
- Nothing here is medical advice. Take questions about your own care to a clinician who knows you.
Data version v1.2, generated 2026-10-27 15:10 UTC. This page is rebuilt from that data. Download the data.