Talk:Transient ischemic attack

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Denverpenver, Dtorres123, Pjb 88, Nfm123. Peer reviewers: Hylas89, BPerkovich, Ucdbhoff, Carlihaasbroek.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

[Untitled]
I am curious as to whether this has been at all linked to eplilepsy (seizures) and/or to any particular types of medications being taken at the time of these brain attacks.

In particular the ingestion of any prescription drugs and whether those drugs are derived from "natural" sources (opiate/poppy/plant) or from "unnatural" (synthetic/man-made) sources (ultram, etc.)

This is based upon my own experiences and observations of my family history.

24.5.14.79 23:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


 * It is certainly not a common thing. It is occasionally difficult to distinguish TIAs and partial seizures, but they are nosologically different conditions. Could you elaborate? JFW | T@lk  07:47, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

blood shot eyes
Would any of the symptoms of TIA be blood shot eyes? My mom's eyes are completely red after an episode — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esh 5328 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * One would wonder if she is actually suffering from TIAs. These questions are best posed to health professionals as opposed to random people on the internet. JFW | T@lk  19:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Call 911 immediately
This section might want to be modified or added to such as to include all other nations which, believe it or not do not use 911 as their emergency number. Can we get some alternatives such as 000 for Australia,and so forth. Or at least a standard disclaimer below the 911 text. Sure people are not stupid about emergency numbers (I hope), but this is a globally accessible project, is it not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mesecina~enwiki (talk • contribs) 07:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * There should probably be a template for this. If you wanted to get fancy enough, you could change the template text depending on the browser's country of origin. In any case, this fix should not apply to this page only; there are plenty of urgent medical conditions. Vectro 16:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

EXPRESS/OXVASC
One cannot begin to contemplate the shift in emphasis brought about by the Oxford team of Peter Rothwell. With a new protocol on early TIA intervention they prevented a whopping 80% of early recurrent stroke as opposed to standard management. - this should certainly be included. JFW | T@lk  19:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect info in the Treatment section
EKGs do not detect thrombus, as stated in the Treatment section. EKGs can show atrial fib which can lead to an embolus. Again, EKGs will never show a thrombus or embolus formation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.73.88 (talk) 22:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Prognosis, TIAs under 10 minutes in duration
With my family's history (grandfather (a couple) and father (one) both having have TIAs of only 1-2 minutes in length) I'm kind of surprised at the duration cited under "prognisis," as I guessed that one quality of a TIA was its very short duration. The doctor called it a TIA with each - if it lasts only a few seconds to a minute, is there still a risk? My guess is not since the cells don't die if it's only a few minutes, but not sure. (Or, could be just a risk for recurrent TIAs, which 1/3 of people have after a TIA.)

I understand this article is labeled starter class, so it won't all be in there yet, I guess this is just as much to give ideas on what to include. it might surprise some people that TIAs can only last a few seconds, or how one can have multiple in their lives and still not get a stroke. It does, however, do a good job of distinguishing from an actual stroke while showing how some tissue could die in a longer TIA. And, how TIAs can predict the possibility of stroke.209.244.30.221 (talk) 15:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Unsound information in the Treatment section without any supporting references
The part of information given about a TIA being caused by misaligned vertebrae is not supported by any sources. Stronger, this mechanism is not mentioned in any textbook or article on that subject that I (Neuroscientist) or peers (Medical Doctors) know. It is also quite unsound in my understanding, as the cerebral bloodflow does not exclusively rely on the vertebral arteries (see "Circle of Willis"). Thus, a constriction of vessels that are innervated as described would have to happen inside the brain, in or very close to the affected areas, in order to cause a TIA. But, as for example Mitchell (2004) shows, there is no neurogenic vasomotor function in the intracranial vertebral artery in primates. If this claim results from observations or theories in the chiropractic or manual therpeutic community, I think it should be recognizable as such. I respect alternative approaches to medicine and I think information from those approaches deserves an equal place in the medical community. But if a theory is only supported by one approach and debated or rejected by others, it is misleading to present it as if it was commonly accepted.

References:

Mitchell, J.A., 2004. An investigation of an autonomic innervation of the vertebral artery using monoamine histofluorescence. European Journal of Histochem. 48(2), 115-20 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Friedokater (talk • contribs) 12:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Failure to cite sources - plagiarism
The "Symptoms" section is copied word-for-word from a Medical News webpage http://www.news-medical.net/health/Transient-Ischemic-Attack-Symptoms.aspx

I wonder if the rest of the article is too.

Someone interested in this should re-write to avoid plagiarism, use quotation marks properly, and include proper citations. 166.217.157.220 (talk) 14:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

And while rewriting, it might be an idea to determine if the terminology of a clot "flying" into the brain is common terminology, because in lay terms, nothing "flies" in a liquid. It "flows", or what may be more accurate with a non-mobile chunk of stuff, travels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.151 (talk) 19:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Clots are "thrown" from one part of the body to another. i.e., the heart throws a clot to the brain.  So it would follow that the clot flies from the heart to the brain.  But I don't know specifically about the word "fly".  Mcavic (talk) 06:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Treatment
Does not include administration of oxygen? I thought it did. Can somebody advise? E x nihil (talk) 06:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Driving
I had a TIA on 20/03/12 and have been strongly advised not to drive a car for a month. Presumably research indicates a high risk of further TIAs/Strokes for that period. It would be beneficial to TIAists to have a referenced Prognosis section, mentioning the avoidance of high-risk activities for specified periods after the attack. Vernon White '''. . . Talk''' 08:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Parietal area of the brain
The text says: "Partial seizure in the parietal area of the brain...." Could the person who wrote this please indicate where the parietal area of the brain is -- there are several links under "parietal" to parts of the brain, an artery and a lobe. Thank you.Risssa (talk) 23:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Redirect
I've noticed that Reversible Ischemic Neurological Deficit redirects here. This is totally incorrect: a TIA is by definition resolved within 24 hours, a RIND between 24-72 hours. I don't know how to fix this on wikipedia, but it is aboslutely incorrect on a medical point of view. Thanks for the help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.241.216.236 (talk) 23:17, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

TIA is NOT a type of stroke, so Wikipedia's insistence of it being a "mini-stroke" is highly inaccurate
Why is "mini-stroke" even mentioned when in fact, TIA is NOT a stroke, but a clotting of an artery?! That's WHY I got rid of it. And yet some admin deleted it saying that because I didn't put in a reason that it's not correct. And he / she has reverted it several times. TIA IS NOT A TYPE OF STROKE!!! It's a condition that if not taken care of will become a stroke!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.14.191.166 (talk) 21:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Please stop shouting. TIA is often referred to as a "mini-stroke" in the UK. Please say how referring to the common description is misleading. "Transient" and "ischemic" have little meaning to a layperson. "TIA" is another obfuscating TLA which is not much use in non-medical dialogue. Please consider other people's point of view as possibly having some validity. Vernon White  . . . Talk 23:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Responses to User 108.14.191.166:
 * - "Mini-stroke" is mentioned because the term is in common usage: with more than 14 million hits for "mini-stroke" on Google, TIA is indeed frequently referred to this way.
 * - The US NIH, Canadian Stroke Network, and UK NHS use the term mini-stroke. What's good enough for them is good enough for WP.
 * - Since the term is so common, WP should in fact also have a redirect from mini-stroke to TIA. Vernon White, if you know how, why don't you do that?
 * - The text of the article very adequately clarifies the relationship between stroke and mini-stroke. People are not being misled or misinformed.
 * - Re the spelling "ischaemic", it is standard practice on WP to acknowledge significant spelling and pronunciation variants (see Aracari for example).
 * - Nobody said you were wrong. You just can't go removing useful content without explanation.
 * - I am restoring the content you removed. You have used up all your reverts, so if you want to pursue the removal, you need to persuade a majority of people here. Any more edit warring, and you will be blocked.
 * - Awien (talk) 18:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

You rely on GOOGLE? an index upon index of crap results?! That's very positive! You seem to tell me Google and Wikipedia are both going to hell? I think that's not possible yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.14.191.166 (talk) 02:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * To User 108.14.191.166:
 * To repeat: The US NIH, Canadian Stroke Network, and UK NHS use the term mini-stroke. What's good enough for them is good enough for WP. Medline Plus even says that a TIA is "a stroke that comes and goes quickly", so your certainty that a TIA is not a type of stroke actually appears to be ill-founded.
 * I have therefor restored the phrase "referred to as mini-strokes" because it is both true, and useful in that it allows people who dearch WP for "mini-stroke" to find the information they are looking for. Kindly stop removing it from from the article.
 * I am now going to report you for edit warring.
 * Awien (talk) 17:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There is already a redirect (2006) from mini-stroke to Transient Ischemic attack. An opportunity to quote Oliver Cromwell: I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.  Vernon White  . . . Talk 19:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

British spelling
I note that the WP article "Ischemia" explains the origin of the term and gives two alternative British/English spellings. That explanation seems good enough to cover the "TIA" article, without further explaining. It would be better, I think, if the "Brain" section of "Ischemia" had a reference to the event TIA, linked to the "TIA" article. It seems to me (though a layperson, that User:Awien has successfully argued for the term "mini-stroke" to be included in the "TIA" article. Vernon White . . . Talk 20:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see why we shouldn't mention both spellings, as so many articles do, but it's clearly no big deal. For now I'm fine with the wording as it stands. As for linking TIA from "Brain", as another layperson I don't see why not. Cross-referencing is good! Awien (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, did that (linked from "Brain"). Awien (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Transient ischemic attack. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150325092322/http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4781 to http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4781

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

[UCSF Wikipedia work plan]
We are a group of UCSF medical students interested in this topic and working on editing this article. We will have the following sections:

Definition Epidemiology Signs and Symptoms Causes and Pathogenesis Diagnosis Prognosis Management Prevention

Given the current impact and quality of this article, we hope that our work will summarize the current literature and evidence on TIA and its management. We will also work on adding references to this article. Stay tuned! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nfm123 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

wikiproject peer editing
Love the work being done. Here are my suggestions: epidem: 200,000 to 500,000 according to the AH---specify that this is 'per year'

s/s: consider re-wording to simple language then hyperlink it to the medical term: e/g: change vestibular dysfunction to: "problems with balance and spatial orientation" but make all that 1 link, where the click leads to the Wikipedia article on vestibular dysfunction

--Matthew Peters — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hylas89 (talk • contribs) 05:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review 12/11/2017
Hey team - strong work on improving this page! I enjoyed reading through it. Below are some thoughts about where you could make some additional tweaks.

PEER REVIEW Epidemiology - First sentence is grammatically a little unclear. I think it could be streamlined a bit. - Is it possible to cite the claims are they’re made and not just in a group of citations at the end. I don’t think there’s a huge problem here, but the text of the section names the source used in some instances (e.g. citing the AHA in the text but without citation to the actual source). Citing each claim as it’s made might help reduce the risk of misattribution. - Second to last sentence isn’t a full sentence but a clause without action

Signs and Symptoms - Could consider linking out to something or defining what “focal neural deficits” means, as this is pretty technical. E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_neurologic_sign - Similarly, the signs and symptoms listed could be linked out to wiki pages where available, just to provide some context into what they’d mean - Isn’t timing a component of the condition, as in the deficits resolve within a certain timeframe?

Causes and pathogenesis - Define which sex is associated with greater risk. Having a gender itself isn’t the risk factor.

Diagnosis - This ddx chart is awesome! - There’s a lot of the use of the word “should” in this section. I’m not sure that I think it needs to be amended, but at times the text does come close to sounding like medical advice, albeit the imperative statements read as more geared more towards providers than patients. - There’s a number of technical tests, etc. that could be linked out to other wiki pages to help provide a little more context to the reader - Imaging, second paragraph, last sentence should probably be cited, as you’re making a new claim — Preceding unsigned comment added by BPerkovich (talk • contribs) 15:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review - Carli Haasbroek

 * TIAs have the same underlying mechanism as ischemic strokes: Add just differs in permanency – or is a non permanent

§	reword to: Due to the nonspecific symptoms of TIAs, there is a multitude of other mimics making diagnosis of the exact incidence difficult.
 * Epidemiology
 * 1) Due to the difficulty in diagnosing a transient ischemic attack (TIA) with the nonspecific symptoms of neurologic dysfunction that could also be a multitude of other mimics on the diagnosis it is unclear the exact incidence of the disease
 * 1) Can you add greater than or equal signs?
 * 2) Agree with trying to separate the ciations
 * 3) Risk factors – mention which sex is higher

o	Really like the differential chart! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlihaasbroek (talk • contribs) 16:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Diagnosis

Peer Review 12/12/17
First off, I want to say great job with the page! It was very readable and contained an incredible amount of information.

Epidemiology
 * The first sentence is slightly too long and a little unclear. A helpful change may be leading off with the statement portion of the sentence "the exact incidence of the disease is unknown" and then shortening the explanation. Another strategy would be to break this into multiple sentences
 * The fourth sentence (starting with "Associated risk factors") lacks a verb

Signs and Symptoms
 * Consider not using the word elucidate, as it is not a particularly common word
 * Is there a time limit for how long TIAs are allowed to last before they are no longer considered TIAs (ie 24 hours?)

Causes and pathogenesis
 * Considering using a colon or hyphen in the first sentence to mark the beginning of a list

Diagnosis
 * The table is great
 * Imaging
 * I would consider explaining what you mean by "vascular clause". A layman may not know what the differences is between a vascular and a cardiac cause are.
 * This portion feels very technical, similar to a medical text with it's use of a wide number of exact values for sensitivity and specificity. It may read more easily if these are linked out to the specific test pages themselves (though this may not contain the exact information)

Treatment
 * Anticoagulant medications
 * This section refers heavily to the use of anticoagulants in stroke but does not reference TIAs at all

Ucdbhoff (talk) 22:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Clarification
Can someone fix this line in the 3rd paragraph? "In ischemic stroke, symptoms generally beyond seven days." Should it read "generally last" or "do not last" beyond seven days? Britcarfxr (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Cardiopulmonary and Diagnostic Applications 1
— Assignment last updated by ImagingMatters (talk) 23:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)