Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T20:09:25.441Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Diphtherial Infection in Scarlet Fever

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

R. T. Grant
R. T. Grant
Affiliation:
University College Hospital Medical School, London.
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.

From consideration of the above evidence the following conclusions may be drawn:

(1) The prevalence of diphtheria-like bacilli in the fauces of scarlet fever patients on admission to hospital does not definitely follow that of diphtheria outside either in seasonal or yearly prevalence.

(2) The majority of such patients show no clinical evidence of the added infection. It is believed that they are instances of scarlet fever developing in diphtheria carriers, and the presence of the organism does not affect the prognosis. However, cases which present such clinical evidence as a mem branous angina are to be considered as instances’ of true double infection and in them the prognosis is bad.

(3) Bacteriological examination of a series of cases belonging to the former group reveals the presence of true virulent diphtheria bacilli in about 36 per cent., and these organisms may persist in a virulent state for a considerable period.

(4) Routine bacteriological examination to find these cases and their sub sequent isolation materially reduces the incidence of post-scarlatinal diphtheria.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 21 , Issue 3 , May 1923 , pp. 250 - 257
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1923

References

REFERENCES

Pugh, (1902). Journ. of Hugiene, II.Google Scholar
Nuttall, and Graham, Smith (1913). The Bacteriology of Diphtheria. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Goodall, (1896). Trans. Epidem. Soc.Google Scholar
Garrat, and Washbourn, (15.04.1899). Brit. Med. Journ.Google Scholar
Soerensen, (1898). Zeitschr. f. Hyg. u. Infectionskr. XXIX. 250.Google Scholar
Report Metropolitan Asulums Board, 1900.Google Scholar
Cumpston, (1907). Journ. of Hygiene, VII.Google Scholar
Williams, (21.12.1901). Brit. Med. Journ.Google Scholar
Beggs, (1895). Metropolitan Asylums Boards Report.Google Scholar
Ranke, (1896). Miinchen. Med. Wochenschr. XLII.Google Scholar
Forbes, (1903). Journ. Pathol. and Bact. VIII.Google Scholar
Kerr, (1920). Infectious Diseases, 2nd edition.Google Scholar
Kolmer, and Moshage, (7.1916). Journ. of Infect. Diseases, XIX.Google Scholar
Todd, (08.05.1898). Lancet.Google Scholar
Gordon, (1900–1–2). Reports of Med. Officer of the Local Gov't Board. London.Google Scholar