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 agree with Dr. Michelson that it is impossible to constitute effective criteria for distinguishing rosacea from Lewandowsky's ``rosacea-like tuberculid.'' Comparing data obtained from the literature with the results of my own investigations it appears to me that neither clinical nor histological examination will constitute an effective criterion for distinguishing rosacea from ``rosacea-like tuberculid.''
Dr. Michelson, however, is supposing that if a tuberculid, i. e., rosacea-like tuberculid, is suggested on clinical and histological grounds "and if there is other corroborative evidence for tuberculosis, one cannot find fault with the diagnosis of rosacea-like tuberculid, even though he may not like the term." This statement is not correct in my opinion because two diseases, i. e., rosacea (or ``rosacea-like tuberculid'') and tuberculosis, may exist at the same time without evident connection. From my material 5 out of 55 patients with rosacea demonstrated an active or cured tuberculosis elsewhere:
VAN Ketel WG. DOES THE ROSACEA-LIKE TUBERCULID EXIST? AMA Arch Derm. 1959;79(6):723. doi:https://doi.org/10.1001/archderm.1959.01560180097028
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: