This Article  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Larry R. Kirkland, MD
Emory University Hospital Atlanta

JAMA. 1982;247(2):175.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.—

The poor results obtained by Thomas A. Chapel, MD, in "Physician Recognition of the Signs and Symptoms of Secondary Syphilis" (1981;246:250) are not surprising. I dare say the recognition rate would have been no better for chancre, unless it appeared on the penile location. Perhaps what is needed is a memory slot to bring syphilis to mind. One such "law" goes roughly as follows: There is a basic contradiction between the cardinal sign and the expected symptom of both primary and secondary syphilis. The primary chancre looks painful but is not; the secondary rash looks pruritic but is not.

There are exceptions, of course, but it seems to help keep lues in mind. . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?