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

ALBERT M. KLIGMAN, M.D., Ph.D.

AMA Arch Derm. 1958;78(1):47-72.

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

This paper deals with immunologic prophylaxis of Rhus dermatitis due to Rhus radicans (poison ivy) and Rhus toxicodendron (poison oak). A comprehensive summary of the clinical biology of Rhus dermatitis has been given in a previous paper, which forms the prelude to the present theme.¹

A striking feature of the literature on Rhus prophylaxis is the contradictory nature of many reports. Students of the subject hold diametrically opposed views. Some achieve remarkable results which are just as remarkably denied by others. Despite genuine advances in the basic knowledge of allergic contact dermatitis, the issue of hyposensitization is one in which there is no end of clinical testimony but relatively little in the way of objective research. Therapeutic ambitiousness has colored the picture with extravagant claims.

The paramount aim of the present effort is to test the soundness of the concept of hyposensitization and . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
Philadelphia

From the Department of Dermatology (Donald M. Pillsbury, M.D., Director), University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine.

Footnotes
Submitted for publication Jan. 31, 1958.

This study was supported by Army Grant DA-49-007-MD-154 and by Lederle Laboratories Division, American Cyanamid Company, Pearl River, N. Y.

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