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  • Citing articles on Web of Science (15)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

A Criticism of Methods

R. H. GOETZ, M.D., Ch.B.; F. AMES, M.B., Ch.B.

Arch Intern Med. 1949;84(3):396-418.

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

ALTHOUGH Brown-Séquard,¹ as early as 1858, called attention to the clinical importance of differentiating arterial spasm from arterial occlusion, routine tests to differentiate between the two have been introduced only within the last twenty years, i. e., since the study of peripheral vascular diseases has become a recognized specialty in the practice of medicine. Numerous methods have been used at various times (general anesthesia, spinal anesthesia, paravertebral block, peripheral nerve block, injections of typhoid vaccine, injections of sympathicolytic drugs, immersion of one or two extremities independently in hot water, and the use of electrically heated sleeves, boots and mattresses), many of which do not lend themselves to routine clinical examination, particularly in the patient's home. Of all the methods mentioned, reflex vasodilatation as produced by body heating is the most practical, the most reliable and the only one not fraught with possible danger to the patient. It is also . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
CAPETOWN, UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA

From the Department of Peripheral Vascular Diseases, Groote Schuur Hospital, and the Surgical Research Department, University of Capetown.

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