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

R. C. JUNG, M.D., Ph.D.; E. C. FAUST, Ph.D.

AMA Arch Intern Med. 1956;98(4):495-504.

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

Introduction

THE PAST 10 years have seen the development of a number of new drugs effective in the treatment of intestinal parasitoses, including particularly several amebicidal drugs and piperazine preparations used in ascariasis and enterobiasis. Nevertheless, improved results in antiparasitic therapy have been due as much to a better understanding of the principles of diagnosis and appreciation of the natural history of the infections as to the use of new therapeutic agents.

Diagnostic methods have been measurably improved in amebiasis. First of all two old myths have been dispelled. Proctoscopy has been shown to be less dependable than adequate stool examination,¹ and the unreliability of distinguishing the active stage of Entamoeba histolytica from that of other amebas on the basis of motility alone is now acknowledged and widely known. New methods for preserving stool specimens make it possible for patients to be diagnosed and treated at a distance from . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
New Orleans; Cali, Colombia, S. A.

Footnotes
Submitted for publication March 14, 1956.

Department of Tropical Medicine and Public Health, Tulane University School of Medicine.

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