[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
Other Articles
December 14, 1940


JAMA. 1940;115(24):2104. doi:10.1001/jama.1940.02810500072032

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:—  Some of the statements made by the reviewer of the book "Illustrative Electrocardiography" (The Journal, Sept. 21, 1940) are misleading. Some of the review presents debatable points on which I feel, on good authority, that our conclusions are much less theoretical and more logical than those of the reviewer.The reviewer's criticism said: "It is questionable whether the attempt to locate the origin of the premature systole as stated on page 49 is correct." The great majority of recognized cardiologists agree with our interpretation (Nomenclature and Criteria for Diagnosis of Heart Disease, ed. 4, p. 128).The review said: "It is doubtful whether the slight variation in the PR interval in plate 44 is worth mentioning." The variation is 0.02 second. This is certainly worth mentioning, as 0.02 second often means the difference between a normal record and a conduction block.The review said: "The interpretation of

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