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?

LESTER HOLLANDER, M.D.; CLARA R. SCHLESINGER, B.A.

Arch Derm Syphilol. 1934;29(3):387-397.

	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 controversy as to the etiology of Boeck's sarcoid has been raging since the time it was first described by Boeck in 1897. And although the opinions on this subject are still varied, they seem to be overwhelmingly in favor of the hypothesis that sarcoid is the product of a reaction caused by the tubercle bacillus.

Recently Kissmeyer,¹ in an excellent monograph on this subject, reviewed Boeck's original contention that sarcoid is a disease sui generis. Kissmeyer classified it as a specific, chronic granulomatous process, one which stands midway between tuberculosis and leprosy. He based this opinion on five points: (1) the absence of a positive tuberculin reaction; (2) the infrequency with which tubercle bacilli have been demonstrated in sarcoid; (3) the peculiar swelling in the hilar glands in the mediastinum; (4) the occurrence of osseous changes in the phalanges of the fingers and toes, giving rise to a . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
PITTSBURGH

From the Pittsburgh Skin and Cancer Foundation.

Footnotes
Excerpts from a paper read before the Section on Dermatology of the Medical Society of the State of Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh, Oct. 5, 1932.

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