This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on Web of Science (8)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

GERD K. STEIGLEDER, M.D.; ARMANDO SILVA, JR., M.D.; CARL T. NELSON, M.D.

Arch Dermatol. 1961;84(5):828-834.

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

A review of the literature reveals that most investigators look upon the Kveim test (KVT) as a valuable aid in the diagnosis of sarcoidosis. Numerous histological specimens available to our laboratory, studied extensively by Nelson and coworkers,^8,9,10 stimulated us to review most of them in an attempt to classify the histologic changes that take place in the skin after the performance of a KVT. It is also our purpose to define more clearly the histological picture required to interpret a KVT as positive or negative.

Boeck believed that the presence of the granuloma itself necessitated a histological diagnosis of sarcoidosis. Later, however, others disagreed.^1,2,11,17 The classical investigations of Lewandowsky and Kyrle^4,6 indicated that the granuloma in sarcoidosis is not characteristic at the beginning, and may lose its typical structure in the late stages. In addition, it was found that several other conditions may resemble sarcoidosis histologically.^13,15 . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
NEW YORK

From the Department of Dermatology, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, and the Dermatology Service, The Presbyterian Hospital.

Footnotes
Submitted for publication July 20, 1961.

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