This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on Web of Science (9)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

CHARLES D. ARING, MD

Arch Intern Med. 1964;113(2):195-199.

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

With the increasing number of cerebrovascular stroke cases and the important though controversial developments in their treatment, it seems timely to outline a method of prompt diagnosis. In 1935 Merritt and I ² considered their differential diagnosis in this journal. Dealing since with many stroke patients, and sharing the experience with successive groups of medical students and house officers, has led naturally to some formulations. A cross section of our ongoing experience is presented, with the hope that a crisp summary may be useful for those not in the thick (one might say the thicket!) of vascular neurology. Detailed discussions on stroke are readily available.^1,4,9,10

Although I am quite aware of the hazards of dismissing such conditions as subdural and spontaneous subarachnoid hemorrhage from the discussion—of the trouble they give in differential diagnosis—it is proposed to do no more than outline some points in differentiating them. Neither will I . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
CINCINNATI

From the Department of Neurology, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, and the Cincinnati General Hospital.

Footnotes
Received for publication Aug 9, 1963; accepted Sept 9.

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