Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-g4j75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-06T03:07:56.997Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Wassermann and Meinicke Klärungs Reactions (Original M.K.R. Ii and Ford Robertson-Colquhoun Modification) in the Diagnosis of Syphilis

An Analysis of 3,284 Parallel Tests

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2018

John C. Thomas
Affiliation:
Shenley Hospital and to the Middlesex Colony, Shenley, Hertfordshire
W. M. Ford Robertson
Affiliation:
West of Scotland Neuro-Psychiatric Research Institute, Glasgow
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Nicole and Fitzgerald's assumption in 1932 that the Wassermann test had at last passed to rest in the limbo of historically interesting experiments can hardly be said to be correct, and the test still remains to-day as the standard method for the sero-diagnosis of syphilis. At the same time the steadily increasing specificity of flocculation tests and their value as ancillary procedures cannot be denied, and the accepted diagnostic ideal is a parallel examination by one of these and by the Wassermann test.

Type
Part I.—Original Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 1939 

References

Borgen, L. O., and Natvig, H.Nordisk. Med. Tidj., 1938, xvi.Google Scholar
Ford Robertson, W. M.Journ. Ment. Sci., 1931, lxxvii, p. 468.Google Scholar
Idem and Colquhoun, D. B.Ibid., 1939, lxxxv, p. 548.Google Scholar
Meinicke, E., and Hagen-Ambrock, I. W.Journ. Lab. Clin. Med., 1934, xix, p. 518.Google Scholar
Menninger, W. C., and Bromberg, L.Ibid., 1935, xx, p. 383.Google Scholar
Nicole, J. E., and Fitzgerald, E. J.Journ. Ment. Sci., 1932, lxxviii, p. 96. — Ibid., 1933, lxxix, p. 52.Google Scholar
Saethre, H., and Breteville-Jensen, A.Norsk. Mag. f. Lœger., 1938, xcix.Google Scholar
Wyler, E. J.Med. Res. Council Spec. Rep. Ser., 1929, No. 129.Google Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.