In partially reviewing the literature on urology of the past three decades, one's attention is immediately attracted to the advances made on the surgical and diagnostic sides, though the advances of the former depend almost entirely on the latter. That is, as the newer methods in diagnosis of urologic conditions have developed, the urologist has become more competent as a prognostician and therefore was enabled to perform operations that otherwise would not seem feasible. Furthermore, the advances in diagnosis have been principally aided by the more modern laboratory methods of the blood and urine, and one finds himself dependent on the various chemical tests of the blood and urine, together with the action of various dyes on certain organs before a urologic operation is performed.
The work of Koranyi1 on cryoscopy, of Heidenhain2 on indigocarmin, of Von Mering3 with the phlorizin test, of Geraghty and Rountree4
GOLDSTEIN AE. THE DIAGNOSTIC AND PROGNOSTIC VALUE OF BLOOD UREA IN UROLOGY. JAMA. 1918;71(24):1957–1962. doi:https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1918.02600500007002
Browse and subscribe to JAMA Network podcasts!
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: