Nosology versus pathology, two approaches to rheumatic diseases illustrated by Alfred Baring Garrod and Jean‐Martin Charcot

Objectives. To show why and how, without underestimating the popular perception of the word ‘rheumatism’, a medical approach to rheumatic diseases needs to consider the distinction between nosology (the study of diseases) and pathology [anatomopathology (the study of lesions) and physiopathology (th...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Rheumatology (Oxford, England) England), 2001-04, Vol.40 (4), p.467-471
Main Author: LAGIER, R
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
A. B. Garrod
Biological and medical sciences
Charcot
Diseases of the osteoarticular system
England
France
Garrod
History of medicine
History, 19th Century
History, 20th Century
Humans
J.‐M. Charcot
Medical nomenclature
Medical sciences
Miscellaneous. Osteoarticular involvement in other diseases
Nosology
Pathology
Rheumatic diseases
Rheumatic Diseases - history
Rheumatic Diseases - pathology
Rheumatic Diseases - physiopathology
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Objectives. To show why and how, without underestimating the popular perception of the word ‘rheumatism’, a medical approach to rheumatic diseases needs to consider the distinction between nosology (the study of diseases) and pathology [anatomopathology (the study of lesions) and physiopathology (the study of functional disturbances)]. Methods. Selected quotations reflecting the thought processes of two famous physicians whose clinical activity (orientated towards nosology) was firmly based on pathology (mainly physiopathology in the case of A. B. Garrod and mainly anatomopathology in the case of J.‐M. Charcot) are discussed. Results. Starting from the physiopathological criterion of hyperuricaemia in gout, Garrod's thought processes led him to name and study rheumatoid arthritis. Alongside his neurological work, Charcot's thought processes led him to underline the common anatomical changes which could be observed in some nosologically distinct forms of chronic rheumatism. Conclusions. Selected older texts of both authors provide good examples of a methodology which can still be useful for present‐day rheumatologists, particularly during their training period. They could serve as a guide to clarify some semantic ambiguities concerning nosology and pathology and for a better understanding of some clinical and radiological overlaps between distinct nosological entities.
ISSN:1462-0324
1462-0332
DOI:10.1093/rheumatology/40.4.467