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?

BASED ON A STUDY OF 5,233 CONSECUTIVE BLOOD CULTURES

S. S. LICHTMAN, M.D.; LOUIS GROSS, M.D.

Arch Intern Med. 1932;49(6):1078-1094.

	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 dealing with the etiology of rheumatic fever shows clearly that much of the controversy in this important field is due to the paucity of adequate controls. It is a curious but undeniable fact that though bacteriologic investigations on this disease date back more than forty-five years, few of the numerous reports published are critical or well controlled. In order to establish a suitable background for the work to be reported in this paper, it may be well to mention briefly a number of the methods by which this problem has been attacked and to point out the doubtful justification in many instances for the conclusions drawn from the data obtained:

1. The description of organisms found post mortem and their acceptance as the etiologic agent of rheumatic fever. This error dates back to the work of Birch-Hirschfeld,¹ and was repeated by numerous investigators. In a
   

Author Affiliations
NEW YORK

From the Laboratories of the Mount Sinai Hospital.

Footnotes
Submitted for publication, Sept. 25, 1931.

Aided by a grant from the Lucius N. Littauer Foundation.

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