[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 34.204.191.0. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
July 6, 1929

NEPHROSIS: A CRITIQUE

JAMA. 1929;93(1):23-25. doi:10.1001/jama.1929.02710010029006
Abstract

Twenty-four years ago Friedrich Müller1 suggested the word "nephrosis" as a term for renal degenerative changes in contrast to "nephritis," which he limited to inflammatory and proliferative lesions of the kidney. Since then there has been an active discussion among pathologists as to how far degenerative lesions should be regarded as part of the inflammatory process, defining inflammation as the reaction of tissues to injury of various sorts, chemical, physical and bacterial. This discussion continues, and some pathologists use "nephritis" to include various renal lesions in very large measure, if not entirely, degenerative in character, while others, at present the larger group, distinguish between nephritis and nephrosis as did Friedrich Müller, and some even speak of such various forms of nephrosis as simple nephrosis, febrile nephrosis, necrotic or necrotizing nephrosis, sublimate nephrosis, barbital nephrosis, arsphenamine nephrosis, fat nephrosis, lipemic nephrosis, lipoid nephrosis, syphilitic nephrosis, nephrosis of pregnancy, amyloid nephrosis,

×