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?

T. J. REEVES, M.D.; T. R. HARRISON, M.D.

AMA Arch Intern Med. 1953;91(1):8-25.

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

WHEN a patient complains of pain in the chest two separate questions often need to be answered. The first involves a decision as to whether or not the pain results from disturbances of the coronary circulation. The second question, which arises only when the first is answered in the negative, involves a positive decision as to the cause of the pain. When a patient is told that his pain is not the result of coronary disease, he naturally wonders what may actually be the cause. Unless this problem can be solved in a manner convincing to the patient, he may continue to believe that the heart is responsible. Such a belief is likely to lead to months or years of unnecessary fright and anxiety on the part of the patient and his relatives.

The purpose of the present article is to emphasize that both of these questions can be answered . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
BEAUMONT, TEXAS; BIRMINGHAM, ALA.

From The Department of Medicine, Medical College of Alabama.

Footnotes
This investigation was supported in part by a research grant from the National Heart Institute, National Institutes of Health, Public Health Service. It was done during the tenure of a National Heart Institute Traineeship (Dr. Reeves).

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