THIS, THE nineteenth annual review of syphilis, contains contributions published during the period July 1, 1953, to July 1, 1954. The over-all trends in this material are along the lines discussed in the previous review.1 In fact, presentations of the problems seemed to have become so repetitious and so suggestive that further work on a dead subject 2 was a waste of time for all concerned, and such a waste of space in important medical journals, that we were considering saying "amen" to these summaries. However, certain experiences we have had in which trainees in dermatology and syphilology have not only failed to recognize active syphilis but have also actually failed to consider this disease in the differential diagnosis have convinced us that, like typhoid fever, syphilis must always be kept in mind. Furthermore, several editorial accounts in medical and lay journals of the potential and actual resurgence of
BEERMAN H, SCHAMBERG IL, NICHOLAS L, KATZENSTEIN L. SYPHILIS: Review of the Recent Literature. AMA Arch Intern Med. 1955;95(2):256–319. doi:10.1001/archinte.1955.00250080078010
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: