In Reply: A New Syndrome? Or Galactosemia?
We appreciate and agree with many of the comments of Dr. Ruth Harris. As pointed out in the article,1 the first patient was seen in 1950 and the second in 1954. We believe that galactosemia was ruled out by the negative Benedict's test of the urine of both siblings–the most practical technique...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Pediatrics (Evanston) 1973-10, Vol.52 (4), p.622-622 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | We appreciate and agree with many of the comments of Dr. Ruth Harris. As pointed out in the article,1 the first patient was seen in 1950 and the second in 1954. We believe that galactosemia was ruled out by the negative Benedict's test of the urine of both siblings–the most practical technique available at that time. The Clinistix reagent strips were not introduced until 1956. In regard to her point about measuring galastose-1-phosphate uridyl transferase, it was pointed out in the article that there are now many other measurements which would be desirable in these patients which were not available at the time the patients were seen. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0031-4005 1098-4275 |
DOI: | 10.1542/peds.52.4.622 |