This Article  • References  • 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?

REUBEN FRIEDMAN, M.D.

Arch Derm Syphilol. 1930;22(2):244-267.

	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 QUESTION

The word "Eczema" has outworn its usefulness and is discredited. The doom of the word is probably written. It will survive, where it belongs, and with no greater repute than attaches in general to the outworn and discredited. Its history disclosed at the outset a floundering in a quagmire of ignorance and an emergence upon semi-solid ground after much travail of keen observation and writing.... There are few experts who now use it without a species of mental reservation or qualification. There is no eczema in the absence of dermatitis.

Thus did James Nevins Hyde,¹ a quarter of a century ago, express himself editorially in the Journal of Cutaneous Diseases.

Hyde may or may not have been a false prophet (twenty-five years is but a short period in medical history, and final judgment will have to be postponed), but the foregoing prognostication, if it may be called . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
Instructor in Dermatology, Temple University School of Medicine PHILADELPHIA

From the Department of Dermatology and Syphilology, Temple University School of Medicine, and The Skin and Cancer Hospital of Philadelphia.

Footnotes
Submitted for publication, Jan. 28, 1930.

Read before the Clinical Society of the Skin and Cancer Hospital of Philadelphia, Jan. 21, 1930.

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