• Online Features  This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on Web of Science (4)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Diya F. Mutasim, MD

Arch Dermatol. 1997;133(9):1158-1160.

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

The ARTICLE by Ghohestani et al¹ in this issue of the ARCHIVES addresses the diagnostic value of indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) testing on human sodium chloridesplit skin (SSS) in the differential diagnosis of autoimmune subepidermal bullous diseases. In contrast to previous reports,^2-7 the results of this study cast some doubt on the accuracy of IIF in differentiating epidermolysis bullosa acquisita (EBA) from the pemphigoid group of diseases, including bullous pemphigoid (BP), cicatricial pemphigoid (CP), and herpes gestationis (HG). The article prompts further discussion of a few related questions. First, what defines each of the various bullous diseases? That is, which feature of the disease distinguishes it from another disease with a high or absolute level of certainty? Second, how does a dermatologist obtain the most accurate diagnosis of a subepidermal bullous disease? Third, how helpful is IIF on SSS in differentiating the various sub-epidermal bullous diseases? Consequently, when the . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations

CiteULike    Connotea    Delicious    Digg    Facebook    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?