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

By Dr. Erwin Pulay, Vienna, Urban and Schwarzenberg, 1925.

Arch Derm Syphilol. 1926;14(2):237-238.

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

In this monograph of 190 pages, the author presents a critical analysis of our knowledge of eczema and urticaria. In view of the wide divergence of opinion on the comprehension of eczema, and, indeed, on its justification as a clinical entity, Pulay's discussion is rich and interesting. Hebra's conception of the unity of dermatitis and eczema is contrasted with the contrary opinion of the French school. According to Weidenfeld, not every dermatitis is an eczema, but every eczema is a dermatitis. In eczematous subjects the dermatitis is transformed into eczema. In the pathogenesis of eczema the anatomic constitution of the skin is of great importance, and this is in part inborn and in part acquired. Ichthyosis is an example of a congenital predisposing state, and diabetes of an acquired one.

Kreibich divides eczema into dermatitis eczematosa and neurodermitis; for him artificial dermatitis is excluded from the group. The question as . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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