[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.197.142.219. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
February 1992

Limitations of Direct Immunofluorescence-Reply

Author Affiliations

Division of Dermatology University of Louisville 310 E Broadway Suite 200 Louisville, KY 40292

Arch Dermatol. 1992;128(2):272. doi:10.1001/archderm.1992.01680120148025

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

Abstract

In Reply.—  We appreciate Bystryn's comments and agree that a more appropriate site selection for immunofluorescence biopsy in patients in whom systemic lupus erythematosus is being considered is a less exposed area. Our study, however, was meant to address the rate of "false" positivity on an exposed surface such as the head or neck. We chose the lateral aspect of the neck to minimize the visibility of the scar from our punch biopsy. It is possible that the rate of false positivity would be even higher from facial skin. The most important issue that we addressed was the use of the immunofluorescence study to diagnose cutaneous lupus erythematosus.

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