[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
March 12, 1898


JAMA. 1898;XXX(11):617-618. doi:10.1001/jama.1898.02440630043005

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.


In the midst of the very conflicting statements which have been made by physicians and physiologists in regard to the etiology and pathology of this disease, the increasing frequency of which we have already called attention to in the Journal, it may not be out of place to call attention to some of the facts which are known to exist in regard to the pathology of this malady. It is but a few years since we have been taught that the constant presence of albumin in the urine was a pathognomonic sign of parenchymatous nephritis, and indeed the temporary presence of albuminuria from time to time was thought to possess equal significance. Now we know that albuminuria in itself is not a pathognomonic indication of a renal lesion of a serious character, however indicative it may be of nephritic changes. So, too, some years ago it was generally considered that

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview