From Citizendium
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is developing and not approved.
Main Article
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
Video [?]
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition A sudden loss of brain function due to interrupted blood supply. [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup category Health Sciences [Categories OK]
 Subgroup categories:  Neurology and Emergency medicine
 Talk Archive none  English language variant Not specified


I used the WP version at first for a framework, and the section of hemorrhage is mostly their content, however, the WP version is extremely unclear, so this is turning into a major rewrite. I'm not sure what level of discourse we are aiming at (somewhere between layperson and medical professional?) I think external links at the end may help send people of different levels to different resources. Im still having trouble finding public domain images. I would especially like to find an illustration of plaque/thrombus, a ct or mr image, and a few others. Thanks. Peter A. Lipson 16:46, 28 April 2007 (CDT)

Additional help provided by Susan A. Catto, M.D., Administrative Director, Stroke Program, William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, MI.

I figured I'd join in as well, it's such an interesting topic. I know that this is challenging, but our goal here should be to provide an entry that an intelligent person who is not necesarily a doctor can read this and know a lot about strokes by the end. The internet is a primary means of health education in the worl, and this article should serve the person whose loved one was just diagnosed with a stroke (as a source of information) as well as serve as a review for the physician. That's tricky but it can be done. I say-let's do it. Nancy Sculerati 10:53, 1 May 2007 (CDT)

Couple of suggestions

  • Might be wise to distinguish traumatic subarachnoid hemorhage (etc) from "stroke".
  • Role of hypertension in stroke?
  • Risk of anti-coagulation?
  • What about aspirin?
  • What about hormone modification, eg oral contraceptives?

Thanks. Work in progress. As it progresses, let me know where you think I need to shore things up. Data on HRT and OCPs is a little fuzzy, but I'm working on it. HTN I have data for, and I've been folding it in. ASA will fall under prevention eventually (primary/secondary). I briefly mention warfarin in asoc. with AF, but as far as risk...well, I have a lot of cleaning up to do in the hemorrhage section. Thanks for your help.--Peter A. Lipson 19:05, 30 April 2007 (CDT)

Thanks for separating out epidemiology.--Peter A. Lipson 12:45, 1 May 2007 (CDT)
I'm still working on incorporating in prevention via statin, ace, arb tx, etc.--Peter A. Lipson 13:48, 1 May 2007 (CDT)

It's fun to go back and forth Peter, thanks for all your corrections. We will need another health science editor, at least, to get this approved eventually since I've become another author. I think for prevention we should get more basic than the kind of "medications" prose implied here. In other words, prevention means keeping arteries open and keeping blood pressure from going either too high or too low, and then from there we can talk about excersize, diet, medications and genetics, too. Anyway, really nice working with you, Nancy Sculerati 08:26, 2 May 2007 (CDT)

I agree, I threw the meds in there so I wouldn't forget to fill in the data. I think the bullet points on prevention are looking ok, but if you think we need to change that around, i'm open to suggestions...Peter A. Lipson 08:59, 2 May 2007 (CDT)

I'm sure we'll work it out as we go, and also get to understand how we work better. I had written some text about the world wide epidemiology of stroke that got removed, it was incomplete. I also had put it in to "remember". Since CZ is a world resource, I've been pushing to have the health articles aimed to a broader audience. I know it's hard to do that, and Stroke is such a big topic, to begin with - without getting into stroke epidemiology in places without good health reporting or, for that matter, the historical treatments of stroke. As we go, though, I predict many other articles will end up branched off. Anyway, I'd be glad to have you author more in TB, as well. As we develop them, hopefully more editors will join. Anyway, learn so much here and really enjoy working with you - especially since you are willing to correct me and push me off if I crowd you. Nancy Sculerati 09:10, 2 May 2007 (CDT)

By the way, if I eliminate any of your material, it's purely accidental. Sorry, bout that. I try to edit other people's words only for clarity, since I don't "own" the article. In fact, I wish we had more help with it. I hope adding your cites to TB helped...if not, just delete them, and let me know how you want them included, as I'm getting fairly good now at images and citations. With the stroke article, I've been trying, on my parts, to add in the well-cited info, and then hopefully fill in the prose later. Your help with that has been invaluable.Peter A. Lipson 09:25, 2 May 2007 (CDT)

No, it's fine Peter. We'll manage with each other, and more people will come. Nancy Sculerati 11:06, 2 May 2007 (CDT)

Too many sections?

There seem to be too many sub sections in this article. Is there any way to reduce the number? Chris Day (talk) 10:28, 2 May 2007 (CDT)

There are a couple of ways we could do that. Many of the sections are subsections, and we could eliminate them and just have subdivisions explained in the text. OR we could have a second "stroke overview" article that is quite brief, as is sometimes done on WP, and keep this one complex. The major divisions as they stand are typical for an explication of a disease, the subsections are just there for clarity and organization.Peter A. Lipson 11:00, 2 May 2007 (CDT)

My 2 cents-this article will end up being revised a lot before approval, I just made a bunch of subsections looking at the Content outline- and not at the article, to give us a plan for the article. I think that before we are done, many if not most sections will end up being broken off as articles, leaving behind a sentence or two - and those sentences might well end up being in paragraphs that are a single section that may have taken the place of several. Other section headings wil be cut when we don't need the reminders - the outline. So- until we get at least the skeleton of this article finished- it is not nearly- it will look ungainly, but like an embryo- has structure needed now that will later be abandoned. How's that for a defense? :-) Could you give us more time to develop? Nancy Sculerati 11:04, 2 May 2007 (CDT)

I'm not going to go in and touch the article but the ones that caught my eye were the singlet subsections such as How does ischemia to the brain come about? Cardioembolic Stroke and 7.1 Thrombolysis. If there are further subsections ( etc.) then that will not be a problem. Chris Day (talk) 11:11, 2 May 2007 (CDT)

It's messed up because neither of us have gotten to it yet. We will. Nancy Sculerati 11:14, 2 May 2007 (CDT)

There is a lot of redundancy between the intro section and the etiol section, and TIA can probably be taken and moved out of the "types of stroke section". Just a suggestion.--Peter A. Lipson 12:55, 2 May 2007 (CDT)

Yes, but people who are interested in Stroke need to know what a TIA is, let's write the article and then prune it, rather than cut now. Nancy Sculerati 13:00, 2 May 2007 (CDT)

OK.Peter A. Lipson 13:09, 2 May 2007 (CDT)

Absolute agreement

"There is much variation in reports of the accuracy of diagnostic imagining"


Howard C. Berkowitz 01:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Nominated for best recent typo award