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:—
Thank you for bringing to our attention the editorial by Dr. Desjardins, Is the Pathologist Infallible?, and Dr. Wartman's reply (Arch. Dermat. 83:310, 1961). Dr. Desjardins discusses many factors which may lead to the occasional fallibility of even a competent pathologist. In his reply Dr. Wartman documents the basis for an evaluation of biopsy diagnosis, and he poses several pertinent questions that tend to explain the not infrequent lack of correlation between the biopsy diagnosis and the clinical course of the disease.Insofar as this problem relates to the pathology of the skin, my paper on Diagnostic Pitfalls of Dermal Pathology (A.M.A. Arch. Dermat. Syph. 67:18, 1953) contains an anticipatory reply to both Dr. Desjardins and Dr. Wartman, and it warrants rereading at this time. In it I make "an appeal for the dethronement of the laboratory, so that you may recognize all of the inherent shortcomings
Caro MR. EDITORIAL BY DR. DESJARDINS AND DR. WARTMAN'S REPLY. Arch Dermatol. 1961;83(6):1016. doi:10.1001/archderm.1961.01580120128037
Dermatology in JAMA: Read the Latest
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.