Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-rkxrd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T13:41:16.709Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The serological types of haemolytic streptococci in epidemic scarlatina

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

C. A. Green
C. A. Green
Affiliation:
From the Bacteriology Department, Edinburgh University
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.

1. Bight serological types of haemolytic streptococci were recognized in acute scarlatina during the 1933 epidemic in Edinburgh.

2. Five of these types were identical with Griffith's types 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, while the remainder have been named, provisionally, B, C and D.

3. Type 5 was predominant during the two months preceding the epidemic and throughout the early development of the outbreak.

4. The epidemic was maintained by successive increases in the proportion of cases due to the remaining type, particularly type 3.

5. The age-group incidence in the epidemic year was identical with that of non-epidemic years.

6. 36·8 per cent of patients on discharge were found to have haemolytic streptococci in the throat but in only 5·4 per cent was a large number of organisms isolated.

7. Haemolytic streptococci isolated from discharged convalescents were in the majority of cases of the same type as the admission strain.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 37 , Issue 2 , April 1937 , pp. 318 - 331
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1937

References

Allison, V. D. & Gunn, W. (1932). Proc. Roy. Soc. Med. 25, 927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrewes, F. W. & Christie, E. M. (1932). Med. Research Council, Special Report Series, No. 169.Google Scholar
Aronson, H. (1903). Deutsche med. Wschr. 29, 439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, W. A. & Allison, V. D. (1935). J. Hygiene, 35, 283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bliss, W. P. (1920). Bull. Johns Hopkins Hosp. 31, 173.Google Scholar
Glover, J. A. & Griffith, F. (1931). Brit. Med. J. 2, 521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, M. H. (1921). Brit. Med. J. i, 632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, C. A. (1935). J. Hygiene, 35, 93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffith, F. (1927). J. Hygiene, 26, 363.Google Scholar
Griffith, F. (1934). J. Hygiene, 34, 542.Google Scholar
Gunn, W. & Griffith, F. (1928). J. Hygiene, 28, 266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, G. R. (1926). J. Hygiene, 24, 415.Google Scholar
Kirkbride, M. B. & Wheeler, M. W. (1930). J. Inf. Dis. 47, 18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacLachlan, D. G. S. & Mackie, T. J. (1928). J. Hygiene, 27, 225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, F. (1902). Deutsche med. Wschr. 28, 751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moser, P. & v. Pirquet, C. (1902). Wien. klin. Wschr. 15, 1086.Google Scholar
Neufeld, F. (1903). Z. Hyg. Infectionskr. 44, 161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rossiwall, E. & Schick, B. (1905). Wien. klin. Wschr. 18, 3.Google Scholar
Smith, J. (1926). J. Hygiene, 25, 165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, J. (1927). J. Hygiene, 26, 420.Google Scholar
Tunnicliff, (1920). J. Amer. Med. Assoc. 74, 1386.Google Scholar
Williams, A. W. (1924). Proc. Soc. Exper. Bid. Med. 21, 291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar