Talk:Stroke

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was previously a Medicine Collaboration of the Week.
WikiProject Medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
B This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance assessment scale
WikiProject Neurology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neurology. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the talk page.
B This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance assessment scale
Peer review This Natsci article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale (comments).

The original text for this article was taken from the public domain resource at http://www.ninds.nih.gov/health_and_medical/disorders/stroke.htm

Contents

[edit] Some

Some people think that ischemic stroke is caused by excessive calcium ions triggered by lack of enough blood circulation. [1]
Yeah, the role of calcium in excitotoxicity is very well supported. This topic is treated in ischemic cascade. --Delldot 15:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

this article needs to address some basic questions, incl:

Q. what is the average person's risk of stroke per year? what if they are a smoker?

[edit] Cerebral hemorrhage

I just came across the cerebral hemorrhage article a little while ago. It seems that it used to be a redirect to this article, but isn't anymore (starting November 2004). Should it point here? —User:Mulad (talk) 05:04, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

I agree cerebral hemorrhage should merge with and redirect to Cerebrovascular accident. Cerebral hemorrhage is unlikely to have enough content to stand on its own without duplicating info already in cerebrovascular accident. -- PFHLai 08:53, 2005 Mar 2 (UTC)
Cerebral hemorrhage now redirects here. Alex.tan 06:53, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
I've added a whole bunch of information to hemorrhagic stroke so I thought it needed its own page. Stroke is already a little long and unruly, I think. Plus, hemorrhagic stroke is really different in mechanism, treatment, epidemiology, prognosis, and risk factors than ischemic. I'd also like to take the treatment for hemorrhagic stroke from this article and into the hem stroke article, leaving a blurb. Let me know what you think.
Cerebral hemorrhage can be caused by brain trauma, and intracerebral hemorrhage has its own stub. Cerebral hemorrhage currently redirects to hemorrhagic stroke, but should it redifect to the stub with a link in the article to hemorrhagic stroke? --Delldot 15:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Hemorrhagic stroke now points here. Cerebral hemorrhage has not been touched. Reason is ICH and SAH are two big topics that can't fit in cerebral hemorrhage anyways, hemorrhagic stroke was briefly added in stroke with ICH and SAH linked.
Original author of cerebral hemorrhage has authorized merge into stroke so I will redirect it soon if there's no objections. Andrewr47 22:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

"On average, a stroke occurs every 45 seconds and someone dies every 3 minutes." - I don't think that this is entirely relevant. -- Johnt --81.174.140.179 21:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CVA should redirect to stroke

There is a growing consensus among neurologists researching and managing stroke, that the term "cerebrovascular Accident (CVA)" should be abandoned in favour of "stroke". The purpose of the change is to highlight the fact that stroke is not an "accident" like a lightning strike, but a treatable brain disorder with known and often preventable risk factors. This is especially true with the advent of thrombolysis and endovascular intervention for stroke.

I'd like to rejig the redirect so that Stroke is the main articla, and CVA and cerebrovascular accident redirect to it. There would also be a textual edit to reflect and possibly highlight the change.

Any thoughts?

(FWIW I am a neurogist at the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, which includes University College London Hospitals NHS Trust Acute Brain Injury Unit.)

--Dubbin 17:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
  • Support. But you might want to also post the suggestion at Wikipedia:Requested moves. --Arcadian 19:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I have not heard about the renaming, and I hear the terms being used interchangeably. I am willing to effect the move (which will involve deleting redirects) if consensus can be reached here. JFW | T@lk 16:42, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Most neurologists I know favor stroke over CVA. It's also nice that it's a term well-known in the lay community InvictaHOG 06:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose (strong) The name by which all other doctors and the textbooks refer to is CVA, if this is seen as an unpleasant (un-PC) term for use by neurologist when talking to patients, then fine, but the technical term used in coding systems is still CVA. David Rubentalk 00:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Some hospitals are trying to call these "Brain attacks" instead of "strokes" but textbooks still refer to these as CVA's. The term "Stroke" is to "CVA" what "Heart attack" is to "Myocardial infarction" Sirhodges 02:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments
  • Re oppose - as I understand things, the WikiProject Clinical medicine has generaly tended to use the technical rather than the lay term. Hence the agreement over Myocardial infarction, with Heart Attack having the redirection. What are we going to do with Transient ischemic attacks, start naming the article "Mini-strokes" ? - David Rubentalk 00:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Also note that "stroke" has other meanings, normally therefore in WP "Stroke" would be a disambiguation page that links to amongst other things CVA, or "Stroke (medicine)" if you must. Unusually for WP, the current "Stroke" page has already reserved the medical use and there is a separate Stroke (disambiguation) page. Switching CVA to Stroke therefore risks others wishing to move it again and claim "Stroke" as the initial disambiguation page. - David Rubentalk 00:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    • As it is the most important use of the noun "stroke", all other terms are disambiguated from it. It is therefore an appropriate redirect. JFW | T@lk 23:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't worry about "classification systems" and "other doctors". They'll learn that "CVA" is no longer the accepted term, just as they learned for "cretin", "insane" and "mongol". The change from CVA to "stroke" is neurologist-led, as is stroke medicine these days. Wikipedia should reflect the prevailing opinion within the appropriate specialty: in this case, neurology. And don't worry about "TIAs", either - when all stroke-like events are treated with thrombolysis or angioplasty within an hour of onset, this term will be defunct too. --Dubbin 23:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Dubbin, could you support this with professional society position documents etc etc? This would be immensely helpful. JFW | T@lk 23:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Off the top of my head, try [2] - the British Association of Stroke Physicians' educational documents page. Every reference to the phenomenon uses "stroke" rather than "CVA". Among specialists dealing with this condition, the term CVA is long dead. --Dubbin 23:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Citing "myocardial infarction" as the "technical" and therefore "correct" term argues against yourself: it is the name used by cardiologists, just as stroke is the term used among neurologists. "Stroke" also happens to have the advantage of being the commonly used lay term. --Dubbin 23:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discision

Page moved. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 01:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] PubMed links

128.248.65.105 (talk · contribs) added some URLs to PubMed abstracts[3]. I have reverted this. A casual reader can see this article has a references apparatus. I think it is rather poor form to use URLs in such a situation. If anyone thinks these studies are worth citing, please let me know so I can reinsert them in the form of actual references. JFW | T@lk 23:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Smell of toast?

I was told that a person suddenly thinking that they smell toast is a sign of stroke. Any truth to this? --TheDoober 09:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

A smell of toast? Sounds like an urban legend. Of course olfactory symptoms may indicate a problem in the frontal lobe, but toast? Nah. JFW | T@lk 12:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not so sure it's an urban legend. I once knew someone who had epilepsy and their warning sign for having a stroke was a strong smell of strawberries. They had 9 seconds after smelling this before they would blackout and start having a stroke. I would say it's certainly possible that the smell of toast is an indicator of an upcoming stroke, however as I just said toast is certainly not the only thing people may smell before they have one. If this information is added it would have to be more generic. VegaDark 09:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
It was added by an anon today. I'm not sure if it should stay in, but it does seem to be a common urban legend, though. I found some web entries, mostly on blogs. It was also referenced on an episode of Will and Grace in 1998 ("WILL: Do you smell toast? Because I think you're having a stroke.") It's hard to search on PubMed or Google, because the TOAST criteria for classifying strokes keeps getting in the way, but perhaps that acronym was a nod to the urban legend. --Arcadian 15:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
If we're revisiting symptoms, we might want to add this. --Arcadian 15:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Blogs are a notoriously poor source of factual information, and I'd keep away from them. I think the American Heart guideline may be worthy of inclusion, but a good link to Barré test should be made, as it is effectively a variant of that. JFW | T@lk 22:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I took out the toast thing. It is certainly not a cardinal symptom like hemiplegia or unilateral facial droop. JFW | T@lk 23:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Smelling burnt toast is a classic sign of an "Aura", a sign that someone is having a seizure, it's not known why, but although any olefactory hallucination can be a sign (but aren't required to have a seizure), burnt toast is common. I've seen it in patients before. 216.48.168.68 11:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

See Wilder Penfield and this link [4] to a TV commercial. I don't know if it was based on a real case though. - Cybergoth (talk) 05:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blabber

There was some random material interspersed into the article that is not very relevant to the general management of stroke:

Other studies are looking at the role of hypothermia, or decreased body temperature, on metabolism and neuroprotection. Scientists are working to develop new and better ways to help the brain repair itself and restore important functions to stroke patients. Some evidence suggests that transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), in which a small magnetic current is delivered to an area of the brain, may possibly increase brain plasticity and speed up recovery of function after stroke.
Recent research has shown that brain cells die after stroke by a signaling cascade using a protein called IKK2, presenting the possibility that cell death may be prevented by blocking this signaling [5].

This can be reinserted somewhere else. JFW | T@lk 16:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

If people don't mind I would like to take out the references in plain parentheses ( #### ) and use standard wiki references templates with full references to the NIH medlib. Andrewr47 02:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Please use cite.php. JFW | T@lk 11:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] merging cerebral hemorrhage & stroke

Cerebral hemorrhage can (not must) be a cause of a stroke. Aside from bleeding (hemorrhage), strokes can also be caused by ischemia (thrombotic stroke).

I removed the merge notice-- 'cause I think it is plainly based on a poor understanding of what a stroke[6] (in the medical sense) is. Nephron  T|C 02:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: The confusion arose 'cause the cerebral hemorrhage article was based on the (errant) assumption that cerebral hemorrhages and hemorrhagic strokes are the same thing. Nephron  T|C 03:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tissue plasminogen activator (tPA)

There is a discussion on Snopes.com (a website devoted to examining myths and urban legends) by Barbara Mikkelson, one of that site's principal contributors, that states: "...a new drug has been shown to limit disability from strokes caused by clots (ischemic) provided victims receive it within three hours of the onset of stroke symptoms. Tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) is a clot-busting drug administered intravenously in cases of ischemic stroke; however, only one in fifty stroke patients has a chance of this drug helping them because currently only 2 percent of them reach an emergency room in time for tPA to be given. (It's possible tPA's effectiveness can be boosted by simultaneous massaging of the clot with ultrasound. Early results from a 2004 study performed in Houston on coupling this drug with such treatment are most encouraging.)" (See http://www.snopes.com/medical/disease/stroke.asp).

At the time of writing (16 April 2006), tPA therapy is not mentioned in the Wikipedia discussion concerning strokes.

Can anyone shed any further light on the content and accuracy of the statements asserted in Snopes?

---EK

Thrombolysis is mentioned. That's the same thing. There are different forms of rtPA available; use of these is called thrombolysis as a container term. JFW | T@lk 08:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pathophysiology

I couldn't find anything about release of zinc ions being important in the pathogenesis of cerebral infarction, and so this was left out of the re-write. Matrix metalloproteases, which are usually dependent on zinc ions, are involved but are not activated by the introduction of zinc ions into to system per se. RFabian 18:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hereditary?

Can someone please explain to me in more detail how a stroke can be hereditary? I've heard recently from the Heart & Stroke Foundation that those who suffer strokes at a young age increase their children's chances of stroke by 70%. My father was told he had a stroke because he was missing a nerve in his brain. My mother told me for all these years that stroke cannot be hereditary. Now, twenty years into life, I find out that chances are strong that I will have a stroke in my lifetime. My dad was thirty-five when he had his. Can someone please tell me if I should be worried? --RPaleja 06:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 131.227.76.238 UK edits in Ischemic stroke

131.227.76.238 made edits about the use of thrombolysis in the UK. They look like nonsense to me. Any views? Nunquam Dormio 06:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted work

I spent a lot of time editing this article to make it more clear and correct errors, and Renice changed much of it back to the original B- version. Too bad!—Preceding unsigned comment added by E4043 (talk • contribs)

Your edit history[7] suggests you have made only one edit and that's your remark above. Nunquam Dormio 20:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I just created a Wikipedia ID today, after having contributed to a few articles. I did my editing anonymously and I see that Wikipedia does not retroactively identify who you are. Anyway I can sign my prior work?—Preceding unsigned comment added by E4043 (talk • contribs) (signed and moved to bottom by Dirk Beetstra T C 21:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC))

Your idea of 'clear' is my idea of 'simplistic' -- I don't think this article needs to talk down to anyone. I want more info, not less. For example, why is "Stroke symptoms start SUDDENLY," better than "Ischemic strokes usually only affect regional areas of the brain perfused by the blocked artery. Hemorrhagic strokes can affect local areas, but often can also cause more global symptoms due to bleeding and increased intracranial pressure."
Explaining your edits in the Edit Summary might help. Also use ~~~~ to sign your comments. --Renice 23:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're so defensive Renice. I felt that stating that strokes symptoms start suddenly as opposed to gradually is crucial information and very clinically relevant. As our readers can see from the very example you gave, my edited version is clear and yours is less so. Importantly, some of the other revisions I made corrected actual errors. Simple truths are better than fancy errors.

I'm not defensive; you're just wrong. Complicated issues are not well served by over-simplification. For example, the symptoms of small hemorrhagic strokes can be so subtle that the patient hardly notices them until they get progressively worse -- in that way, one can say that the symptoms are progressive. In which case 'SUDDENLY' in all caps (please.) is actually misleading. (And you still need to sign your posts.)--Renice 14:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • If you're correcting 'actual errors' explain your edits and cite your sources. --Renice 15:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Further, since you seem to need another example, changing something like "Often, patients complain of a sudden, extremely severe and widespread headache" to "Often, patients complain of the worst headache of their life" is not only grammatically incorrect, it's useless, as well as 'unencyclopedic'. --Renice 15:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Renice -- truce!

  • I'm sure you would agree that the textbook case of SAH involves a patient complaining of the "worst headache of my life". Every medical student knows that. And, it's very clinically relevant.
  • Similarly, almost every acute stroke presents with the patient describing the sudden (SUDDEN) onset of his symptoms. I felt that these points need to be emphasized to the wikipedian audience because they are so clincally important.
  • As far as an example of an actual error that I corrected, I see that you put back in:

"symptoms may include:

-muscle weakness (hemiplegia)

-numbness

-reduction in sensory or vibratory sensation"

I corrected that statement because numbness IS reduction in sensation -- they should not be separate bullets. And reduction in "sensory sensation" is redundant.

I'm new to how this works and I don't know how to retroactively sign my work, nor was I aware of the option to defend my changes in the discussion section. I will do so in the future. Thanks.

[edit] Anonymous Removal of Alternate Perspective on tPA

The data against the use of tPA in acute stroke was summarily deleted by an anonymous user. The use of tPA in acute stroke is highly controversial and although the AHA and AAN endorse it, the AAEM does not. Because of the controversy, it is important for both views to be presented in this Wikipedia segment. It is not appropriate for an anonymous editor to delete it. I would request from an administrator that anonymous deletions and editions not be allowed on this important and contentious topic. E4043 19:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] cigarette smoking

Several times the article says cigarette smoking increases the risk of a stroke. However, it isn't really clear, does it mean only cigarettes or just any form of smoked tobacco or even chewed tobacco?

I suspect there may not be enough data to distinguish. Chewed tobacco also leads to absorption of the biochemical culprits in atheroma formation. JFW | T@lk 11:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bamford

In the UK much emphasis is placed on the 2000 Bamford classification[8]. may be worthwhile including. JFW | T@lk 11:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FAST Mnemonic

A search for the FAST mnemonic leads to the FAST disamb page, which directs readers here. There is nothing in the article about the mnemonic. Was it here at some time in the past and edited out through prior consensus, or is it an opportunity to upgrade the article? I don’t want to do the research required to add it the Symptoms section if you’ve already discussed and deleted it in the past as unreliable or non-notable. Thanks, 12.96.58.21 19:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC) Kevin/Last1in posting without cookies

[edit] Physical therapy

Perhaps something about the general effectiveness of physical therapy could be added to the prognosis section? AdamBiswanger1 03:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please clarify

What is the problem at this point? I'm not sure I understand what part of the statements I added I need to work on and in what way? Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by StratedgeConsult (talk • contribs) 01:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HELP!!

Someone is disputing what I just added and I would like to know what part so I can fix it...

StratedgeConsult 02:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You are adding non-standard treatments without suitable references. The University of Maryland Medical Center page is itself a summary of other studies, and it would be much more useful if you could add references directly to the research that supports the treatments you are writing about. Have a look at original research, reliable sources, and perhaps also lending excessive weight to minority viewpoints.
Also, the tone of your contribution sounds more like a patient information leaflet than an encyclopedia ("This should not be attempted without consulting a physician as the choice of exercises will be very important.")
It can be very difficult to write usefully about alternative medicine in this context. I think we need to explain carefully which treatments are popular, and leave out those that have no popular support nor an evidence base. JFW | T@lk 09:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative medicine

Ah!, thank you for explaining! Now I know what to do to fix this. I am fairly new to using Wikipedia... it can be pretty frustrating to have your stuff removed without a constructive comment! So thank you and I will see what I can do to make it better. 66.108.20.63 14:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC) I just looked again at the article I used and it is accredited by URAC: A.D.A.M., Inc. is accredited by URAC, also known as the American Accreditation HealthCare Commission (www.urac.org). URAC's accreditation program is the first of its kind, requiring compliance with 53 standards of quality and accountability, verified by independent audit. A.D.A.M. is among the first to achieve this important distinction for online health information and services. Learn more about A.D.A.M.'s editorial process . A.D.A.M. is also a founding member of Hi-Ethics (www.hiethics.com) and subscribes to the principles of the Health on the Net Foundation (www.hon.ch). Is that not sufficient in terms of credibility and reliability? Just looking for guidance to make sure my contributions are worthy of WIKI! Thx 66.108.20.63 14:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Please read the WP:RS before you ask. Extracts from WP:RS. "A reliable source is a published work regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Evaluation of reliability will depend on the credibility of the author and the publication, ... the most reliable publications are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; ...Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable publications , such as ... medicine and science. " In medicine, you should stay with peer-reviewed work published in academic journals. Even there the quality isn't that high. The URAC you refer to is an INSTITUTIONAL health care accrediation which has nothing to do with the ACADEMIC quality of the knowledge presented. Your hospital may be accredited by a standards institution, but that does not mean the web pages are correct and that does definitelyu not mean that their web pages are reliable sources. Janbrogger 15:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Types of stroke is incorrect

This refers constantly to "ischemic" and "hemorrhagic" as the two types of strokes. This is misleading, in that ALL stroked are ischemic. That's the problem here, and why it's not just a subdural bleed. I'm putting this here in the discussion before I change anything, proposing that I change "ischemic" to the correct term "Occlusive". Occlusive is proper terminology (as far as the field of paramedecine regards it) Sirhodges 01:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Paramedicine? Well, in practically all stroke publications the terms ischaemic and haemorrhagic are still used. You might be correct, but the literature uses these "incorrect" terms because they are more concerned with the primary clinical abnormality than with the pathophysiology. The Wikipedia page should therefore stick with the terminology in commission. JFW | T@lk 18:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bamford

PMID 1675378 - we cannot NOT mention the 4 major stroke syndromes initially documented by Bamford et al in 1991. I will need to pull the paper if I want to cite it properly. This presentation (by erstwhile editor Dokane (talk · contribs)) contains the usesful information too. JFW | T@lk 18:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

RCP 2004 2nd ed stroke guidelines - this will reflect the UK situation. JFW | T@lk 16:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
AHA documents and guidelines JFW | T@lk 16:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
SITS trial - Safe implementation of thrombolysis in stroke JFW | T@lk 16:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
PMID 12917889 - Cochrane review of thrombolysis in stroke. JFW | T@lk 16:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
PMID 17687132 - a recent review on ischaemic stroke by prof Van Gijn. JFW | T@lk 17:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
PMID 16484610 - bedside examination of the "brain attack". JFW | T@lk 17:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

PMID 14568745 - if I can't get Van Gijn's paper, there always the last major review by the Edinburgh lot. JFW | T@lk 00:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cryptogenic stroke

doi:10.1111/j.1538-7836.2008.02903.x - how hard are we looking for causes of stroke, and what can be done for the rarer/stranger causes? JFW | T@lk 10:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Collaboration

I've just started reading this article. Except for an official section on "Causes" (which might be redundant), it looks pretty complete. What's the goal? I can find an hour this week to help, if you've got particular tasks in mind for the non-specialists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed that some symptoms and treatment information is present in the introductory section to the article. Does anyone else agree that these should be moved to the individual sections? CycloneNimrod (talk) 01:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, when I say move.. I actually mean delete as these are already in the individual sections. CycloneNimrod (talk) 01:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] First aid "diagnosis"

I just killed the external link to a local-area-only nonprofit. It had information about the three-part first aid screening for stroke: smile, repeat a sentence, hold your arms over your head. This is appropriate information, I think, for our general audience. Where in the article does it belong? Symptoms? Diagnosis? A new section on first aid care? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] E.M.D.R. and Stroke

Has anyone seen evidence regarding the use of E.M.D.R. and recovery of short term memory in stroke victims? Watson M. (talk) 08:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

What is EMDR? Google? JFW | T@lk 05:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

E.M.D,R. (Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing) is basically a way of allowing those with brain trauma for example post traumatic stress readapt to normal life. That is to say the ability to control the mind by allowing events to be placed in long term memory. Watson M. (talk) 08:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

EMDR, a not well supported psychology treatment. [9]. Without a pubmed journal or other medically reliable source it should not go on the page. WLU (talk) 10:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mortality

wat percent of people die from strokes and what might it come frim????i need to no because my brother had one yesterday and he is still in the hospitla im really horried/scared i dont know what to do please tell me some thingss!:(<math>Insert non-formatted text here</math> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.118.150 (talk) 20:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry nobody has responded to your message yet. This is more a question for the reference desk. Mortality from stroke depends on the type of stroke (lacunar versus partial/total anterior circulation stroke), and on the general condition of the patient (e.g. other concomitant illness). JFW | T@lk 05:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Magnesium

In an observational study higher levels of magnesium seem to have conferred a benefit. Not sure if there will be interventional trials, let alone which population they would choose for such an intervention http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/168/5/459 JFW | T@lk 05:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] C/E (what does that mean?) of my nutrition quote

Why was my quote cut out (diff? I don't agree with the change, which turned the text into an editor's POV rather than a reliable source's POV. ImpIn | (t - c) 06:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree and have restored it. Good call. -- Fyslee / talk 07:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

In that article, the authors' opinion on their colleagues' knowledge is the least important bit. They write the article because they want to inform physicians about the benefits of nutritional intervention. For the average reader of this Wikipedia article, it is much more important to mention the actual facts discussed in that article, namely that a Mediterranean diet can markedly reduce stroke risk. There is probably much else that can be quoted from that paper. JFW | T@lk 09:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

True. Good edit. ImpIn | (t - c) 09:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm really glad we're in agreement about this. It is not unreasonable to mention some more of Spence's observations, as there is clearly evidence that good nutrition stops people stroking. I don't think, however, that we should mention it at the top of all preventative measures, precisely for the reasons Spence states: nutrition is not on the agenda yet. JFW | T@lk 10:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)