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

RAYMOND PEARL

Arch Intern Med. 1919;24(4):398-403.

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

Recently Head¹ contributed an interesting discussion of the results of treating post-influenzal pneumonia by the open as contrasted with the close ward method. The general result apparently was to show that the latter method was greatly superior to the former, as evidenced by the case fatality rates under the two modes of procedure. While the author definitely draws this conclusion and states with confidence that the study of the 1,400 cases he dealt with "points the way to the more successful management of this disease," he also raises a rather obvious point of criticism to the results as they stand, using the following words:

The question at once arises, Is the lowered mortality here shown in favor of the closed ward treatment a real gain in the management of the disease over the open ward method, or are the favorable results only a coincidence, an expression of a lowered mortality . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
BALTIMORE

Footnotes
Papers from the Department of Biometry and Vital Statistics, School of Hygiene and Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, No. 6.

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