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?

JAMES B. HERRICK, M.D.

Arch Intern Med. 1943;71(6):741-748.

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

In 1843 in a short introduction to Ungar's translation¹ of Auenbrugger's "Inventum novum," Josef Skoda in his brusque way declared that "to catalogue the reasons why Auenbrugger's discovery, which was so clearly set forth in his book was not noticed by his contemporaries would be a useless task." A study of his book, he said, showed that Auenbrugger with the fullest right might be looked on as the founder of modern diagnosis.

Yet in spite of Skoda's pronouncement of a century ago the question has since that date been taken up more than once. Two papers deserve especial notice, one by Noltenius, the other by Neuburger. In 1908 Noltenius² published an exhaustive study of the problem of why the results of a scientific clinical investigation that had been carried on for seven years were gradually all but forgotten. In 1922 Neuburger's³ critical monograph appeared, which, based largely . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
CHICAGO

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