This Article  • References  • 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?

Stephen R. Pitts, MD
Crawford W. Long Hospital Atlanta

JAMA. 1986;256(2):211.

	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.—

I read with interest the review by Belsey et al¹ in the Feb 14 issue of THE JOURNAL, which mentions under "Technical Implications" that the new office laboratory will require practitioners to adopt the role of laboratory director, with all its dreary quality control trappings. I am an emergency room (ER) physician and at the time was looking for documentation of the usefulness of clue cells in the diagnosis of Gardnerella vaginitis (or "anaerobic vaginosis") to present to the hospital laboratory director, since we have not been allowed a microscope in the ER (because of quality control considerations, among others). I was hoping to have the presence of clue cells included in each vaginal wet preparation report. An hour's worth of telephone calls and a trip to the medical school library revealed the following paradoxical information.

Of 11 hospital laboratories telephoned in the area, all with . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Footnotes
Edited by Drummond Rennie, MD, Senior Contributing Editor; Sharon Iverson, Assistant Editor.

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