This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.
Drs Krutchkoff and Eisenberg take us severely to task for publishing the results of our histologic study of 100 cases of oral lichen planus without "histomorphologic documentation" that our diagnoses were correct. They state that "lesions cited in this study bear no relation to lichen planus," and go on to pronounce the results reported "questionable and thereby unacceptable." Having thus disposed of the need to consider what actually was said in our article, the authors refer us for enlightenment to an article of their own on a similar topic that has recently appeared in another journal.In our article, we did not attempt to discuss in depth the diagnostic criteria for lichen planus, but merely summarized our working criteria, at the outset, with references. This seemed to us to be appropriate, insofar as the criteria we mentioned (the same criteria used by Krutchkoff and Eisenberg in their article) have been
Gallagher G, Shklar G. Lichen Planus: Significant Premalignant Potential?-Reply. Arch Dermatol. 1986;122(5):504–505. doi:10.1001/archderm.1986.01660170028009
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.