Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
C. White, F. Weidman (1927)
PSEUDO-EPITHELIOMATOUS HYPERPLASIA AT THE MARGINS OF CUTANEOUS ULCERS: WITH ESPECIAL REFERENCE TO HISTOLOGIC DIAGNOSISJAMA, 88
G. Mackee, M. Stone (1930)
SURGERY IN DERMATOLOGIC PRACTICEJAMA, 95
H. Montgomery (1928)
BASAL SQUAMOUS CELL EPITHELIOMAArchives of Dermatology, 18
The decision as to whether or not tissue should be removed for microscopic examination in a given dermatologic case involves a number of questions. The matters of scar, pain and discomfort, objection on the part of the patient, dissemination of the process involved and, finally, the question of the amount of information to be obtained by microscopic study of the tissue are all to be considered. One finds in the analysis of a series of cases that the opinion of the microscopist is about equal to that of the clinician in that certain cases are typical microscopically but obscure clinically, whereas the reverse is true in another group. The pathologist thus makes an excellent consultant, being the authority in some cases and in others corroborating the diagnosis only by correlation of the histologic and clinical picture. In inflammatory processes this correlation is of the utmost importance. The microscopist either will
JAMA – American Medical Association
Published: Oct 3, 1931
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.