We have read Dr Goldsmith's comments and agree that it was an error for these publications not to have acknowledged each other at the time of their submission. These two manuscripts were prepared independently by the two medical staffs responsible for this unusual patient's care. The focus of these manuscripts was intended to be different—each describing details relevant to the respective specialty. The report in the Archives was a succinct description of this patient's clinical course and response to therapy. The report in the pediatric literature included three clinical photographs, light and electron microscopy of lesional skin, and a more general discussion of epidermolysis bullosa. We regret any problems or misinterpretations raised by this issue.
A review of both articles reveals that they discuss the same patient and that neither contains essential information that is absent from the other. All authors of the publication in the
Rogers RB, Yancey KB, Allen BS. Duplicate Publications (?)-Reply. Arch Dermatol. 1984;120(8):992. doi:10.1001/archderm.1984.01650440021004