[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
August 1926

Eczema and Urticaria

Arch Derm Syphilol. 1926;14(2):237-238. doi:10.1001/archderm.1926.02370200131018

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 this monograph of 190 pages, the author presents a critical analysis of our knowledge of eczema and urticaria. In view of the wide divergence of opinion on the comprehension of eczema, and, indeed, on its justification as a clinical entity, Pulay's discussion is rich and interesting. Hebra's conception of the unity of dermatitis and eczema is contrasted with the contrary opinion of the French school. According to Weidenfeld, not every dermatitis is an eczema, but every eczema is a dermatitis. In eczematous subjects the dermatitis is transformed into eczema. In the pathogenesis of eczema the anatomic constitution of the skin is of great importance, and this is in part inborn and in part acquired. Ichthyosis is an example of a congenital predisposing state, and diabetes of an acquired one.

Kreibich divides eczema into dermatitis eczematosa and neurodermitis; for him artificial dermatitis is excluded from the group. The question as

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