Talk:Thrombus

message: I added the section called "Dangerous?" to differentiate between the type of thrombosis that can kill you vs. those that are innocuous but more likely to occur. My experience was that I had a superficial thrombosis which was not dangerous but all the information on the web regarding thrombosis/blood clots goes pretty quickly to "stroke, pulmonary embolism, heart attack, DEATH". So I blew an ER visit on finding out the difference between the two. Thought this would be helpful to people who will end up here to allay fears about the harmless versions. I put it near the top so that people who are trying to self diagnose would find it quickly. Hope I'm conforming to conventions and not stepping on any toes. Also note that I added the same section to the page "thrombosis". NOTE: I think it is strange that there is no link between these two pages. Seems like this page should be a combined "thrombus/thrombosis" and redirect from "blood clot" since the information is so closely related and people searching may find one and not the other but both are relevant and/or the same (where thrombus is the clot and thrombosis is the condition of having one) --Bthegoodwin (talk) 01:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Added Dangerous? Section

message: This article is almost completely about thrombosis, an abnormal clot in uninjured tissue, instead of being merely about the clot itself. --WhiteDragon (talk) 18:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. All the information here about thrombi would help one understand thrombosis. The purpose and physiology of a thrombus would make an appropriate small section in that article, and all the other information here either is already included there, or should be. (Strictly, in theory I guess it would be better to redirect Thrombosis to Thrombus the way Embolism redirects to Embolus, but in real life thrombosis is the term a searcher is likeliest to use.)--Egmonster (talk) 01:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge into thrombosis? 

message: My bio textbook defines a Thrombus as a clot that occurs in the specific instances of no injury.  The article seems to say that all formed clots are thrombi.  Is one or the other correct, or are both used in conjunction with each other? romnempire (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the definition too broad? 

message: The link near the top of this article named "occlusive" is incorrect. it redirects to "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plosive" which is a language thing as far as i can tell. Id fix it but I have no idea what its supposed to be leading to. 74.132.249.206 (talk) 20:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  wrong link. 

message: I've tagged the link to stasis for disambiguation. I imagine it's supposed to point to stasis (medicine) or Venous stasis, but I don't have any background to be sure or pick the correct one. DennisIsMe (talk) 00:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stasis 

message: I am expanding the caption on the first illustration from "Blood clot diagram" (duplicating the title already above the picture) to "Diagram of a thrombus (blood clot) which has blocked a blood vessel valve." I am also expanding the caption on the gif animation in the "Pathophysiology" section. Lacking medical background, I am not sure if I am describing the situations correctly. Also, the original caption on the animation said it showed a vein, but in the "Prognosis" section I see, "Propagation of a thrombus occurs towards the direction of the heart. This means that it is anterograde in veins or retrograde in arteries." Does this mean the gif really shows an artery, and the diagram at top shows a vein?--Egmonster (talk) 21:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: And why is propagation mainly toward the heart, anyway?--Egmonster (talk) 22:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Captions for illustrations