1974•Archives of DermatologyRequires access

Untitled research work

Author information unavailable

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

To the Editor.— Our studies were designed to evaluate the relative contribution of shortwave ultraviolet light (<320 nm) vs longwave ultraviolet light (> 320 nm) to the Goeckerman treatment. We could not demonstrate a therapeutic role for longwave ultraviolet light. In controlled studies, Young could not demonstrate a therapeutic effect for ultraviolet light produced by a high pressure mercury arc lamp and therefore concluded that there is no justification for the use of ultraviolet light in the treatment of psoriasis. Psoriatic lesions in two of our patients did not improve or resolve while receiving 1% crude coal tar ointment and longwave ultraviolet light. Lesions elsewhere on the same patients resolved while receiving 1% crude coal tar ointment and primarily shortwave ultraviolet light. We cannot believe that the response of any given number of psoriatic patients to tar preparations alone would explain our inability to affect psoriatic lesions in two patients

About this research paper

What this paper is about

To the Editor.— Our studies were designed to evaluate the relative contribution of shortwave ultraviolet light (<320 nm) vs longwave ultraviolet light (> 320 nm) to the Goeckerman treatment. We could not demonstrate a therapeutic role for longwave ultraviolet light. In controlled studies, Young could not demonstrate a therapeutic effect for ultraviolet light produced by a high pressure mercury arc lamp and therefore concluded that there is no justification for the use of ultraviolet light in the treatment of psoriasis. Psoriatic lesions in two of our patients did not improve or resolve while receiving 1% crude coal tar ointment and longwave ultraviolet light. Lesions elsewhere on the same patients resolved while receiving 1% crude coal tar ointment and primarily shortwave ultraviolet light. We cannot believe that the response of any given number of psoriatic patients to tar preparations alone would explain our inability to affect psoriatic lesions in two patients

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

To the Editor.— Our studies were designed to evaluate the relative contribution of shortwave ultraviolet light (<320 nm) vs longwave ultraviolet light (> 320 nm) to the Goeckerman treatment. We could not demonstrate a therapeutic role for longwave ultraviolet light. In controlled studies, Young could not demonstrate a therapeutic effect for ultraviolet light produced by a high pressure mercury arc lamp and therefore concluded that there is no justification for the use of ultraviolet light in the treatment of psoriasis. Psoriatic lesions in two of our patients did not improve or resolve while receiving 1% crude coal tar ointment and longwave ultraviolet light. Lesions elsewhere on the same patients resolved while receiving 1% crude coal tar ointment and primarily shortwave ultraviolet light. We cannot believe that the response of any given number of psoriatic patients to tar preparations alone would explain our inability to affect psoriatic lesions in two patients

Key concepts: Longwave, Medicine, Ultraviolet light, Ultraviolet, Coal tar, Dermatology, Ultraviolet a, Psoriasis

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Untitled research work — Research Paper | ScholarLens