PEDIATRICS Vol. 65 No. 6 June 1980, pp. 1197
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Squire, E. N.
Right arrow Articles by Favara, B. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Squire, E. N., Jr
Right arrow Articles by Favara, B. E.

Letters to the Editor

Edward N. Squire Jr MD1, James K. Todd MD1, and Blaise E. Favara MD1

1 The Children's Hospital, 1056 East 19th Avenue, Denver, CO 80218

It is an appropriate conclusion that our data should "mitigate enthusiasm for the prospective use of WBC parameters in the diagnosis of infection of the newborn infant." Such enthusiasm for a laboratory test is usually the result of the overzealous interpretation of inadequately controlled comparative studies suffering from small sample size, or inappropriate extrapolation of limited conclusions to expanded populations. Very few diagnostic laboratory tests are so sensitive and specific that they lack significant false-positive or false-negative results, and the aforementioned white blood cell studies are commonly referred to as nonspecific indicators of inflammation with just cause.