[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
June 1959


Author Affiliations

Department of Dermatology Binnen-Gasthius Amsterdam, Netherlands

AMA Arch Derm. 1959;79(6):723. doi:10.1001/archderm.1959.01560180097028

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:

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