Talk:Intracerebral hemorrhage

message: *Cerebral hemorrhage was a redirect to Cerebrovascular accident, but was made into a substub. Was there something wrong with the redirect, or should it be reverted? -R. fiend 17:39, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be better as a redirect. Axl 21:12, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: From PNA/Biology

message: What is the difference between a intracerebral hematoma and a intracerebral hemorrhage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.241.170 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 19 January 2012(UTC)
:A hematoma is a collection of blood, and a hemorrhage is a bleed.  delldot talk 18:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The above text was moved from . Graham87 05:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: What

message: == PREVENTION ==
U HAV TREATMENT LISTED N THAT DONT HELP ME NONE. 
Y NOT LIST PREVENTION SO PPL CAN TRY 2 AVOID THAT 
SHIT? THIS IS SUPPOSE 2 BE SUM OF ALL HUMAN 
KNOWLEDGE ISNT IT? WELL GIME DAT KNOWLEDGE 
Yuliya 20:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know whether 24.188.17.249 is a troll or just really really bad at spelling but check his contributions. He's being posting unintellagiable dross on talk pages for months now my personal favourite being []. As  for his question I presume that prevention would just involve avoiding the things mentioned in the 'Risk Factions' section as far as possible. --Meridius 12:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 24.188.17.249 has violated talk page guidelines with profanity, all caps, and insulting tone.  Meridius has also violated many of the same talk page guidelines as 24.188.17.249 by way of name-calling ("troll") and derogatory tone ("unintellagiable dross", "my personal favorite").  Plus, Meridius is incorrect and/or dishonest in stating that 24.188.17.249's quoted post is unintelligible. 24.188.17.249's message is perfectly clear to me, in spite of spelling mistakes/abbreviations.  He recommends clarifying preventive measures, and possibly renaming the "Risk Factions" section "Prevention".  His post is no longer relevant to the article, of course, but it seems appropriate here to remind editors to follow the talk page guidelines when posting. --Jmjanzen (talk) 16:51, 26 June 2008 (UT'jjjj'jjj'jjjj?
The stubby Brain haemorrhage is now redirected to this article. It included only this unsourced information:
A brain hemorrhage occurs in the brain and is a common cause of sudden death.  
Brain hemorrhages occur due to potentially deadly flaws in the blood vessels of the brain.  Many people living with these, around one in 100 are completely unaware of these as are their families.  Often, the first indicaion of it is once an individual has died and a brain haemorrhage is cited as the cause of death. 
The defects in the blood vessels are known as "berry aneurysms" which are like tiny balloons where the wall of the artery has become thin and weakened.  
However, not every brain hemorrhage is due to berry aneurysms.  The haemorrhage that occurs when a berry aneurysm bursts is called a Subarachnoid Hemorrhage.
There is often little or no warning that a brain hemorrhage is going to occur.  Often before it occurs, perhaps by only a few hours the victim will feel a severe headache.
Most recently, on 10th September 2007, The Body Shop founder Dame Anita Roddick died after suffering a major brain hemorrhage.  She had the symptoms of severe headache and died a few hours later, aged 64.
--Camptown 10:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism ?? 

message: I merged Intraparenchymal hemorrhage here because of concerns brought up on the talk page.  delldot talk 15:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Talk:Intraparenchymal hemorrhage]]

message: I made an edit changing "African-American" to "black", as the former seems too restrictive and assumes an American reader: the source (4) documents an increased frequency of haemorrhage among the black population in general, American or not. "Black" was the only general term I could find as a replacement, and is the term used by the source (4). If anyone thinks the term offensive, and can find another nationality-neutral term for the racial group we're talking about, please replace my edit. 91.135.1.212 (talk) 13:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racial terminology 

message: Some page history that used to be at the title "cerebral hemorrhage" can now be found at Talk:Cerebral hemorrhage/Old history. Graham87 05:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some relevant page history 

message: Is encephalorrhagia used instead of cerebral haemorrhage commonly?  I read about encephalorrhagia, didn't know what it was and looked it up.  I couldn't find a link in wiki but according to a couple of medical dictionaries (references forthcoming) it's another word for cerebral haemorrhage.  Is there anyway of putting that in this page or is it such an uncommon usage that it's not needed.  Red Fiona (talk) 15:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick question 

message: "The mortality rate for intraparenchymal bleeds is over 40%" -- "bleeds" as a noun sounds like hospital locker-room slang. Perhaps it's also used in the professional literature, but regardless, IMO it's clearly out-of-place in a general-purpose encyclopedia. 178.8.82.225 (talk) 19:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate (slang or technical) terminology 

message: The second paragraph states that there are two types of intra axial haemorrhage, and goes on to list intraventricular haemorrhage as in this catagory. This is not within the brain parenchyma and communicates with the subarachnoid space (and subarachnoid haemorrhage commonly extends into the ventricles) so i don't think it can be called intra axial. I may remove this, unless someone objects?
encephalorrhagia -> I have not heard this in common usage.
Personally2001 (talk) 22:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  intra axial haemorhage 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Intracerebral hemorrhage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080227162001/http://www.orlandoregional.org/pdf%20folder/overview%20adult%20brain%20injury.pdf to http://www.orlandoregional.org/pdf%20folder/overview%20adult%20brain%20injury.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(18)30253-9 predicting size increases. JFW | T@lk 13:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Will it get bigger? 

message: The source https://books.google.ca/books?id=TUfZSKldJRwC&pg=PA387&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false classifies it as this rather than as a stroke though it can also be classified as a stroke. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Type of intracranial hemorrhage

message: — Assignment last updated by Abluejay19 (talk) 17:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: WikiMed Fall 2023

message: I think we should probably rename this article to Hemorrhagic Stroke and add a blurb about SAH (which comes under that term). The abbreviation "ICH" is often used with the term Intracranial hemorrhage. Abluejay19 (talk) 19:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename Article 

message: Adding the above subsections can make this page about ICH aka hemorrhagic stroke more comprehensive  Abluejay19 (talk) 21:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding Subarachnoid Hemorrhage; IPH and IVH sections 

message: 1. First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way?
The lead of this article is excellent. I believe it is concise and to the point, yet jam-packed with high-yield very important information (definition, risk factors, treatment, epidemiology). I did not find any superfluous knowledge in these introductory paragraphs. I was very impressed overall by how well this complex topic was written with few jargon or terminology that I think would be unfamiliar to those not in the medical field - anything that was "jargony" was hyperlinked to another article for more in depth explanation.
2. What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?
One suggestion for the article is regarding the "Signs and symptoms" section (I can't remember if you had mentioned wanting to remove that or keep it but tweak it...), but I feel like this section has alot of jargon. And like you mentioned in one of the meetings, the signs and symptoms of a stroke could be anything. One potential idea is to mention only the main signs/symptoms (while acknowledging in the article that there are numerous more) that are often taught to the general public, ie. the "BE FAST" mnemonic for "Balance, Eyes, Facial drooping, Arm weakness, Speech difficulty, Time to call 911" -- though this is probably not academic enough. Are there any reviews or articles out there looking into the effectiveness of this mneumonic for the general public? I feel like it's taught in alot of different settings. I've even had a guest speaker come to my church, which has a lot of elderly attendees, and they taught this.
I think changes to this section of the article would be an improvement because it would improve readability of the article if you're trying to continue with your goal of making it non-medical professional friendly. I think also if an individual who is not health literate is looking up a stroke, there could be a high chance they could be wondering if they or a loved one is experiencing a stroke, so that section would be very important.
3. What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
I think the most important thing that could be improved in this article is the "Signs and symptoms" section of the article, as described above. Tweaking this section would improve readability of the article and make it non-medical professional friendly. If an individual who is not health literate is looking up a stroke, there could be a high chance they could be wondering if they or a loved one is experiencing a stroke, so that section would be very important.
4. Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know!
This article lead was a great example of writing a complicated topic without using jargon! Definitely is applicable for my own article which is similarly a complicated topic and the jargon is something I was struggling with.
Anesthesiastudent2024 (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review