[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
October 30, 1943


Author Affiliations

Los Angeles

JAMA. 1943;123(9):584. doi:10.1001/jama.1943.02840440066025

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


To the Editor:—  I should like to make a few comments on the article by Drs. Stokes, Lee and Johnson entitled "Contact, Contact-Infective and Infective-Allergic Dermatitis" appearing in The Journal, September 25.A bilateral chronic and recurrent dermatitis of the hands of a physician should be considered to be due to a rubber glove sensitivity until proved otherwise. Dr. Stokes neglected to point out an occasionally important factor—that of localized sensitivity. Localized or regional epidermal sensitivity has long been recognized by dermatologists. An example of this is nail polish dermatitis of the eyelids and face, where patch tests of nail polish may be negative on the arms or back yet be strongly positive when applied to the forehead or side of the neck. In the same manner patch tests of a suspected rubber glove actually causing a dermatitis of the hands may yield a negative test when performed on the

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