This Article  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • 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 this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Theodore F. Schlaegel, Jr, MD
Indianapolis

G. Richard O'Connor, MD
San Francisco

Arch Ophthalmol. 1981;99(12):2206-2207.

	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.

—Thirty years ago most patients with uveitis were thought to have either tuberculosis or syphilis. Although the diagnosis of uveitis is almost always presumptive, certain diagnoses today can be made more accurately because of (1) the availability of new tests that can be performed on the ocular fluids themselves, (2) the introduction of isoniazid, (3) the use of serologic tests such as the FTA-ABS, and (4) the description of many new uveitis entities. Three of the most common uveitis diagnoses made today—toxoplasmosis, histoplasmosis, and peripheral uveitis—were unknown entities in 1944.

Our purpose is to point out that although they are less prevalent as systemic diseases than they once were, ophthalmologists should not miss cases of ocular tuberculosis or syphilis. For most cases of uveitis, we have no specific treatment, but for these two entities, specific therapy is available. Such treatment may be helpful not only for the . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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