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

A CLINICAL STUDY OF 562 CASES

JACK S. GUYTON, M.D.; ALAN C. WOODS, M.D.

Arch Ophthal. 1941;26(6):983-1018.

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

The significance attributed to the various systemic infections and diseases believed to cause endogenous uveitis varies enormously in different clinics, in different localities and in succeeding decades. These variations appear due to the individual bias of the observer, to the prevalence of certain diseases in certain localities and to the steady improvement in diagnosis and in medical knowledge.

Table 1 gives a summary of the more significant of the published reports on the etiology of uveitis and illustrates the changing opinion of ophthalmologists. In the middle of the last century uveitis was regarded as due to syphilis, rheumatism, gouty diathesis or tuberculosis. In the latter part of the century localized pyogenic infections were occasionally blamed.¹ In the early part of the present century, in the flush of popularity enjoyed by the doctrine of focal infection, uveitis was attributed to localized focal infections in an increasing number of cases in . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
BALTIMORE

From the Wilmer Ophthalmological Institute of the Johns Hopkins Hospital and the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.

Footnotes
Read before the Section on Ophthalmology at the Ninety-Second Annual Session of the American Medical Association, Cleveland, June 5, 1941.

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