To the Editor.—
I have been somewhat delayed in writing this letter, but I do feel I should respond to an erroneous statement made by the authors of "Pseudomonas aeruginosa Rash Associated with a Whirlpool" (235:2205, 1976) regarding the findings of a similar occurrence and investigation that we conducted in 1972.1 I'm personally acquainted with the authors, and I am sure that it was simply a misinterpretation of our data.It was stated on page 2206 that "A similar outbreak in Minnesota has been described, but in that investigation several pseudomonads were identified from pool surfaces, but none was recovered from pool water." This statement was incorrect. Indeed, in our investigation, pseudomonads were recovered from pool water, as well as from infected skin areas of several of the children who used the whirlpool. Unfortunately, in Table 4 of our article, the source of a culture was simply indicated as
McCausland WJ. Pseudomonas aeruginosa Rash Associated With Whirlpool. JAMA. 1976;236(22):2490–2491. doi:10.1001/jama.1976.03270230014012
Coronavirus Resource Center
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: