Trial reportExperimental physiology2026
Haemodynamic responses to head-up tilt versus lower-body negative pressure in type 1 diabetes.
Trial report in Experimental physiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Haemodynamic responses to head-up tilt versus lower-body negative pressure in type 1 diabetes.Experimental physiology · 2026Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Head-up tilt (HUT) and lower-body negative pressure (LBNP) both reduce central blood volume but differ in heart orientation and regional fluid shifts. Whether they evoke comparable cardiovascular regulation when matched for preload remains uncertain. We characterized differences in fluid redistribution and haemodynamic responses during graded HUT and LBNP at intensities eliciting equivalent reductions in thoracic blood volume (TBV). In a randomized crossover design, 30 young adults (16 healthy control subjects and 14 with type 1 diabetes) underwent both HUT (22°, 42°, 58° and 80°) and LBNP (-10, -20, -35 and -50 mmHg). Segmental bioimpedance, haemodynamic and ECG responses were recorded continuously. Equivalent reductions in TBV were obtained for 22° vs. -10 mmHg, 42° vs. -20 mmHg, and 80° vs. -35 mmHg (all P > 0.9). However, regional fluid shifts differed, in that HUT induced splanchnic pooling, whereas LBNP promoted pelvic pooling. At matched reductions in TBV, stroke volume decreased more during HUT than during LBNP (P = 0.016). Cardiac output was maintained during HUT owing to more pronounced tachycardia, but it declined during LBNP at -35 mmHg. Type 1 diabetics exhibited consistently higher heart rate across all conditions, but preserved stroke volume, cardiac output and mean arterial pressure relative to control subjects. Although HUT and LBNP generate comparable reductions in TBV, they elicit distinct cardiovascular adjustments. HUT engages gravitational influences that help to maintain cardiac output, whereas LBNP isolates baroreflex-mediated responses, underscoring the unique contribution of gravity to orthostatic regulation. Collectively, these findings refine interpretation of orthostatic models and highlight their utility for detecting early reductions in autonomic reserve in type 1 diabetes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.