This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (1)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

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

In the September 1997 issue of the ARCHIVES, Lewis et al¹ advocate a slight modification of a previously published effort at standard definitions of basic dermatologic lesions. They acknowledged the limitations of that and other previous attempts at classifying individual skin lesions. Lewis and colleagues specifically faulted the article "Glossary of Basic Dermatology Lesions: The International League of Dermatological Societies Committee on Nomenclature"² in these words: "Some of its definitions were ambiguous and neither all-inclusive nor mutually exclusive, thus leaving some basic lesions without an identifying designation."¹ We agree with their assessment but gently advise that that same criticism may be made of their own endeavor to define individual lesions of the skin.

Lewis and colleagues propose 11 terms that they deem sufficient to describe fundamental lesions of the skin: macule, patch, papule, plaque, nodule (meant to connote a deeper but not larger papule), mass (meant to replace tumor), vesicle, . . . [Full Text of this Article]

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

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

The Wheal: To Be or Not to Be
Vazquez-Lopez et al.
Arch Dermatol 2001;137:94-95.
FULL TEXT