This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

H. J. M. Barnett, MD

Arch Neurol. 1990;47(4):441-444.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

Until the second half of this decade, neurologists interested in stroke felt little need for critical studies evaluating therapeutic measures. Neither stroke prevention nor specific treatment of patients who had signs of infarction offered promise. Detailed study of individual patients was of importance mainly to assess the probable prognosis. The imaging methods of the day were inexact, uncomfortable, and not without risk. The situation has changed: there has been a dramatic decline in the occurrence of, and mortality due to, stroke; primary prevention measures collectively appear to have brought about this reduction; some effective secondary prevention measures are available now, and other new ones look promising; certain measures to reduce the brain edema associated with infarction have been found to be ineffective, if not hazardous, and we are struggling with uncertainties about the others; putative measures for brain resuscitation are undergoing animal and early clinical trials; the possibility of actively . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
From The John P. Robarts Research Institute, London, Canada.

Footnotes
Accepted for publication September 27, 1989.

Reprint requests to The John P. Robarts Research Institute, PO Box 5015, London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5K8 (Dr Barnett).

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?