Talk:Intraparenchymal hemorrhage

Medicine High‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Intraparenchymal hemorrhage.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

I

I see your point about merging the article with intra-axial hematoma, but intraparenchymal is only one type of intra-axial. And I was thinking of eventually writing one for intraventricular. Though I guess they could both go into subtopics on the intra-axial page. And then if a whole lot more info gets added on each type, we can re-differentiate the pages later. So go ahead and do it if you want. --Delldot 16:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This series of articles (Intra-axial/extra-axial/intracerebral/intraventricular/intraparenchymal/subarachnoid/subdural etc) is too fragmented and likely very confusing to the lay person. We do not need to split the subject into so many "sub-articles". The actual clinico-pathologic entities are simply

intracerebral hemorrhage,
subarachnoid hemorrhage,
subdurals and epidurals.

I appreciate that designations like "intra-axial" and "extra-axial" serve as a useful aide memoir to the organized medical mind, but really, do we need to split and sub-split the articles in this, a general encyclopedia, to this degree? I am a bit surprised to see that we have three separate articles named Intra-axial hematoma, Intraparenchymal hemorrhage and Intraventricular hemorrhage; there is also an additional redirect from Intracerebral hemorrhage to Intra-axial hematoma. However, the subject matter is actually usually dealt with under the single rubric Intracerebral hemorrhage in much of the general neurological literature. (Take a look at the pages Intraventricular hemorrhage and Intra-axial hematoma: what in them can't be better placed in a good article on ICH?) In addition to the problem of fragmentation, splitting the articles this way requires the use of poor titles. "Intraparenchymal hemorrhage" simply means bleeding in the parenchyma (of an organ). A bleed in the liver may equally be said to be intraparenchymal. —Encephalon 11:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... perhaps this should be placed elsewhere? Where does the discussion on medical topics take place mostly, these days? —Encephalon 04:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine. However, I'm the person who did much of the splitting, and if you'd like to try merging some of the articles, I won't stand in your way. I do ask, though, that you update the navigation templates accordingly after you're done. --Arcadian (talk) 00:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this up Encephalon, sorry to take so long to deal with it. I've merged the info to cerebral hemorrhage. This page now redirects there, but can you think of a better target? The point about other parenchyma is taken. delldot talk 15:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]