Talk:Stroke

Stroke rehabilitation

doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60325-5 - this week's Lancet. JFW | T@lk 15:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Acupuncture on Stroke Rehabilitation

Some opinions said that acupuncture is effective in the recovery after a stroke, how true is this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.49.220.170 (talk) 06:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

accupuncture can bring different results to different people, if it worked awesome, if not improved - not much is lost. Ltk59 (talk) 15:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Duration of Recovery

Usually how long a person to recover from hemiplegia(what is the best example)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.49.220.170 (talk) 07:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Every case will be individualized, the question to be asked is if the person who has the condition corrected the reason they developed the hemiplegia Ltk59 (talk) 15:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Merge Silent stroke

Should probably be merged here. Little content that is not covered here and currently a cotract.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I thought we were beyond the pettiness, slapping, a merge tag on the Silent stroke article just to be spiteful because I wrote it is not the type of behavior one would expect of an administrator and also a physician. The discussion on the Talk:Suicide page is obviously what precipitated this merge request. I made a rational argument to support my position on the suicide article which included references and said nothing disparaging against you, you made no attempt to support your position beyond a snide comment about the article not being a "patient tract". Silent stroke is not a "co-tract" to stroke because not everybody who has a silent stroke has a major stroke afterwards it also affects various population groups including young children with various hemoglobinopathies like Sickle cell disease (SCD). Approximately 7-8% of children with SCD suffer a stroke while up to 30% have silent stroke; there are also unique issues associated with silent stroke so it warrants a separate article.There was also no mention of silent stroke anywhere on Wikipedia until I wrote so there was no previous concern on your part about the content matter it and also the article is not complete so please be mature and not disrupt Wikpedia to prove a point. 7mike5000 (talk) 05:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Mike, please assume good faith. I think it is entirely appopriate to consider the importance of merging the articles. The current silent stroke article is stuffed with primary sources, and I don't think a lot would remain if we removed everything that could not be backed up with WP:MEDRS-compliant sources.

Indeed, it makes more sense to split the content to multi-infarct dementia and stroke. A silent stroke is not a disease by definition. JFW | T@lk 20:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The merge tag was placed out of spite nothing more by User:Jmh649 who as you know is also an administrator which is not acting in good faith. The timing for this alleged concern is because I mentioned it on the Talk:Suicide page, I was trying to improve the article, he can't explain how an image which romantacizes suicide is appropriate for a article on suicide, so to be petty he puts the tag up. The article is not complete and the fact that it is "not a disease" does not dictate whether or not it warrants a separate article. Transient ischemic attack is also not a disease they are both "vascular events".

No offense because i'm not loking to get into it with someone else but people preach WP:MEDRS-compliant sources and yet do just the opposite and blatant medical misinformation or ommission of facts are a lot more egregious transgressions to the integrity of a medical resource than WP:MEDRS-noncompliant sources, the originally misnamed Hemoglobin Lepore syndrome comes to mind. The Silent stroke is not done because nobody else has bothered to contribute to it and I was under a restriction from mentioning the word "cognitive", which, cognitive deficits and emotional lability are major effects of silent stroke, so I have held off. Also as I previously mentioned there was no mention of silent stroke anywhere on Wikipedia at all, zero, which is an incredible oversight so I find the sudden concern over the topic circumspect and not in good faith. The fact that people are willing to interfere with valuable medical information available to a worldwide audience just to be petty and piss someone off is incredible, that the individual who precipitated this is a physician makes it more reprehensible so please do not preach to me about good good faith. 7mike5000 (talk) 22:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Your language worries me. I see no evidence of "spite" or WP:POINT in Jmh649's actions. More likely, he looked at your contributions and saw the article you had been working on, and felt it would be better merged here. You really should not read too much into that, however easy it might be if you're sensitive to it. It is not relevant that James is a doctor or an administrator.

Nobody is suggesting that the content of silent stroke should disappear. I think I agree with James that it might be better to discuss the information in context. My personal view is that the current content needs stronger sources. JFW | T@lk 23:10, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I mentioned Silent stroke on the Talk:Suicide page within a few hours the image on the article is deleted, erroneously I might add and a merge tag appears that is a blatant example of WP:POINT. The fact that User:Jmh649 is an administrator is relevant because an administrator shoud be a little more mature and refrain from petty vindictiveness. Being a doctor is also relevant as they should place the welfare of others above their own egos. Silent stroke affects millions (11 million in the U.S. alone compared to 760,000 strokes), most people are not aware they have had one, Wikipedia presents the opportunity to disseminate that information. Silent stroke presents some unique challenges in addition to the fact that it is often undiagnosed, this is but one example:

"In one of the landmark studies examining the impact of silent stroke on neurocognitive functioning, Armstrong and colleagues (1996) found that children with SCD and a history of overt stroke had significantly lower neuropsychological scores than children withour silent strokes..."(Sam Goldstein, Cecil R. Reynolds: Handbook of Neurodevelopmental and Genetic Disorders in Children p.345)

If Wikipedia strives to be an informative and relevant medical resource it is hard to achieve that aim by deleting useful information or diminishing the quality of that information, just to exercise vindictiveness against one individual. An unwarranted merge would most definitely diminish the information on silent stroke as it is a separate vascular event. The article itself is by no means complete; it is an important medical topic, there was no mention of it on Wikipedia so I started the article and posted it in a truncated form, which while brief explains the basics. The article needs to be expanded, improved and as far as "current content needs stronger sources" I do not disagree. When the opportunity presents itself I will add to it in the meantime anyone is free to improve the article as I do not own it. 7mike5000 (talk) 02:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

You don't need to tell me that children with sickle cell get strokes, silent or otherwise.

Your ranting at Jmh649 has nothing to do with his administrator status; if he had protected an article or blocked a user this might be relevant.

Again, nobody is suggesting that content is deleted. What is being suggested is that the relevant content is moved to a place where it can be discussed in context. The term "silent stroke" attracts exactly 48 PubMed hits (link), so I think we should move away from this terminology in favour of discussing the pathophysiology of vascular dementia and sickle-cell disease. JFW | T@lk 10:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The image illustrating silent stroke is not of a silent stroke but a major stroke. The image is thus not appropriate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Um, that's not correct, the type of stroke depicted occuring in the Middle cerebral artery can occur in Silent stroke please read The Hisayama Study. PMID 7886710 thank you 7mike5000 (talk) 12:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes silent strokes can occur in the MCA territory. But this is not a silent stroke. This is a full blown stroke. Ask any radiologist.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that silent strokes are an important enough medical issue to need to be addressed somewhere; that the information on silent stroke given here is not redundant to that in the main stroke article (with the exception of some of the material on risk factors); and that there is too much good-quality information in the silent stroke artcle to be comfortably accommodated within the main stroke article. Cf on all points the discussion of TIA and lacunar stroke within the main article, but having them linked to standalone topic aricles. Mikalra (talk) 17:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Peer reviewed articles on Silent stroke as the topic or that mention silent stroke predominately are in the 100's. That's because it is a major topic.[1]

• Silent stroke in the NINCDS Stroke Data Bank: "Previous brain infarctions seen on CT are common in the absence of history of stroke. Eleven percent of patients (135/1,203) without stroke history had ischemic lesions on their first CT, unrelated to the presenting stroke".[2]
• Framingham Study: "It is common to find computed tomography scan evidence of prior stroke without a history of such an event"[3]
• "The relations between the carotid lesions and the incidence, size, or localization of the brain lesions were investigated. RESULTS: The incidence of silent infarcts was 42% in all subjects and significantly increased with advancing age (P < .05). Most lesions were smaller than 1 cm in diameter and were usually localized in the subcortical white matter or the basal ganglia"[4]

There are a few hundred more such as the Hisayama Study[5], Copenhagen Stroke Study[6] and interesting studies such as

• Incidence of silent cerebral infarction in patients with major depression: "Our findings suggest that half of presenile-onset major depression and the majority of senile-onset major depression might be organic depression related to silent cerebral infarction"[7]

Silent stroke warrants it's own article. Any physician worth his salt knows that. 7mike5000 (talk) 12:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

this topic should not be merged, the entire subject of stroke - from micron stroke to silent cerebral ischemia/infarction thru TIA and all the way up to CVA is so complicated that separation is needed for each topic as research, treatments, and concepts should be developed for each specific area. Ltk59 (talk) 15:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• Don't merge. The organisers of World Stroke Day felt the topic of silent stroke was worth focussing on in 2008,[8] and even a cursory look at medical websites and literature shows significant coverage of this variant of stroke - I fail to see how Doc James missed this. Doc James hasn't given any good reason to merge or explained how the merge would be accomplished, and he's not explained how this is a "coatrack". If you don't like the content as it stands, edit the article. Fences&Windows 23:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Closed as non consensus. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

External link - What is the problem [9]

I found this page meets the EL criteria, can someone (preferable the editor who reverted by contributions) WP:EL[10]--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 08:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Have added DMOZ. Feel free to add the external links there. Cheers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but to avoid any issue i have started [[11]] Because I think people just revert new editors to topics without even looking. EL criteria is met in my opinion. As a reader The current article I dont understand, I am not a Dr. It was not written for the layman. The external link helps me understand.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 09:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs improvement yes but that is not done by just adding links. If people want to good search they are free too. If people need simple content it can be found in simple English http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stroke_(medicine) I am working on a project to improve the content on Wikipedia as described here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MED/Translation_project and will get to stroke eventually.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Different people use wiki in different ways, but I think the simple stroke article should be somewhere at the top of this article. And every article should have good external links just as much as it should have good references. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 10:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on consensus which one the English wiki can take some time to get. The key point is that we are a free encyclopedia... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)