[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
February 21, 1948


Author Affiliations

New York

From the Neurological and Neurosurgical Service of the Mount Sinai Hospital.

JAMA. 1948;136(8):517-521. doi:10.1001/jama.1948.02890250005002

Despite the fact that the clinical diagnosis of spontaneous subarachnoid hemorrhage is comparatively easy to make and the pathology of the syndrome is fairly well understood, there still are enough gaps in our knowledge to justify further investigation of the subject. There are, indeed, a number of excellent reviews of both the clinical and pathologic aspects of the syndrome, but the statistics on the former are sometimes misleading and the studies of the latter are not always conclusive. Often one can make clinically the diagnosis of ruptured cerebral aneurysm, and not infrequently one may venture a correct opinion as to localization based on clinical signs and symptoms. But aneurysm is not the only cause of spontaneous subarachnoid hemorrhage, and necropsy does not always reveal it even when it is. Martland,1 basing his views entirely on postmortem studies, stated:

We believe that most of those cases of spontaneous subarachnoid hemorrhage