optimizing the definitions of stroke, transient ischemic attack, and infarction for research and application in clinical practice
Clicks: 264
ID: 221189
2017
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
30.0
/100
264 views
36 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #146 of 263 articles by views in journal of photochemistry and photobiology a: chemistry
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 263 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Background and purposeUntil now, stroke and transient ischemic attack (TIA) have been clinically based terms which describe the presence and duration of characteristic neurological deficits attributable to intrinsic disorders of particular arteries supplying the brain, retina, or (sometimes) the spinal cord. Further, infarction has been pathologically defined as death of neural tissue due to reduced blood supply. Recently, it has been proposed we shift to definitions of stroke and TIA determined by neuroimaging results alone and that neuroimaging findings be equated with infarction.MethodsWe examined the scientific validity and clinical implications of these proposals using the existing published literature and our own experience in research and clinical practice.ResultsWe found that the proposals to change to imaging-dominant definitions, as published, are ambiguous and inconsistent. Therefore, they cannot provide the standardization required in research or its application in clinical practice. Further, we found that the proposals are scientifically incorrect because neuroimaging findings do not always correlate with the clinical status or the presence of infarction. In addition, we found that attempts to use the proposals are disrupting research, are otherwise clinically unhelpful and do not solve the problems they were proposed to solve.ConclusionWe advise that the proposals must not be accepted. In particular, we explain why the clinical focus of the definitions of stroke and TIA should be retained with continued sub-classification of these syndromes depending neuroimaging results (with or without other information) and that infarction should remain a pathological term. We outline ways the established clinically based definitions of stroke and TIA, and use of them, may be improved to encourage better patient outcomes in the modern era.
| Reference Key |
abbott2017frontiersoptimizing
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | ;Anne L. Abbott;Anne L. Abbott;Mauro Silvestrini;Raffi Topakian;Jonathan Golledge;Jonathan Golledge;Alejandro M. Brunser;Gert J. de Borst;Robert E. Harbaugh;Fergus N. Doubal;Fergus N. Doubal;Tatjana Rundek;Ankur Thapar;Ankur Thapar;Alun H. Davies;Anthony Kam;Joanna M. Wardlaw |
| Journal | journal of photochemistry and photobiology a: chemistry |
| Year | 2017 |
| DOI |
10.3389/fneur.2017.00537
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.