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?

John M. Eiband, M.D.; Herbert L. Fred, M.D.

Arch Intern Med. 1963;111(4):405-406.

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

From time to time there appear articles which make a plea for greater specificity in speaking and writing.^1,2 This is as it should be, since precision in the communication of knowledge is important to the progress of science. In line with this thesis, we shall point out reasons for abandoning the inappropriate use of "bile in the urine," a term long entrenched in medical tradition.

Exactly how or when this phrase became common jargon is not certain. As early as 400 B.C. Hippocrates described jaundice and mentioned dark urine.³ In the 13th Century John Actuarius wrote that discolored urine resulted from admixture with bile, or, more rarely, with blood.⁴ Richard Bright, in an excellent treatise on jaundice published in 1836, referred to the urine of his patients as being "highly tinged with bile" or "loaded with bile."⁵ In 1845 Scherer isolated a crude preparation of biliverdin . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
Department of Internal Medicine Baylor University College of Medicine Houston 25, Texas

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