You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 39 No. 3, March 1982 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  ARTICLES
 This Article
 •Full text PDF
 • Reply to article
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

'Kazanetz, Schizophrenia, and Soviet Psychiatry': A Reply

Etely Ph. Kazanetz, MD, DSC
4, apt No. 108, Pervy Vrazhsky Pereulok Moscow 119121, USSR

Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1982;39(3):355.

Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.

— I feel it necessary to reply to the comments on my article (ARCHIVES 1979;36:740-745) made by Walter Reich in his letter "Kazanetz, Schizophrenia, and Soviet Psychiatry" (ARCHIVES 1979;36:1029-1030). I am late in responding to his letter because I had no opportunity to acquaint myself with it at the proper time.

First of all, let me address the point raised by Reich, concerning "difficulties of a methodological and substantive nature." He questions the validity of my findings (that "approach perfection or near perfection") in support of Kraepelin's nosologic approach. In so doing, Reich refers to a situation" not uncommon in Soviet psychiatric studies...carried out by researchers who, it seems, may sometimes be influenced in what they find and in what they conclude by the hypothesis at hand." As far as my study is concerned, let me emphasize that the "nearly perfect" agreement between the results of computer and clinical diagnoses cannot be explained by a biased interpretation. . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1982 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.