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

FRANK C. KNOWLES, M.D.; HENRY B. DECKER, M.D.; ARTHUR G. PRATT, M.D.; J. ALEXANDER CLARKE, Jr., M.D.

Arch Derm Syphilol. 1938;38(5):773-779.

	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 reviewing the literature of poison ivy dermatitis one observes contradictory trends of opinion on various phases of the subject. The nature of the process is in question. Is it merely a contact dermatitis or a manifestation of allergy ? Vaughan¹ expressed the thought that poison ivy dermatitis is probably not allergic. Coca and Grove,² using the Prausnitz-Küstner test, failed to demonstrate sensitizing bodies in the blood of persons sensitive to poison ivy. Rostenberg and Sulzberger³ stated that the result of a patch test is much more liable to be positive in contact dermatitis than in the atopic variety. Spain and Cooke⁴ concluded that sensitization is transmitted from the original focus to other parts of the skin and mucous membranes by the blood and lymph. Recently Straus and Coca,⁵ after experimentation on rhesus monkeys decided that sensitization develops only in connected skin by continuity, and hence, . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
PHILADELPHIA

Footnotes
Read at the Sixty-First Annual Meeting of the American Dermatological Association, Inc., Del Monte, Calif., June 10, 1938.

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