In any disease in which the diagnosis cannot be reduced to something like certainty, the prognosis must evidently be considered with some reservation. If in addition diagnosis and prognosis are alike made dependent on laboratory tests, either these procedures must be of demonstrated accuracy and especial relevance or else we shall be led into blunders in diagnosis or faulty deductions in our conceptions of the nature of the disorder.
In relation to uremia, I wish to call attention to certain limitations of laboratory aids, and to exceptions which many cases present to what is perhaps a doubtful average, since by constancy of iteration some of these tests bid fair to be accepted as criteria.
Now, in the conditions we call uremia the clinical manifestations cover a wide range, and in proportion as the picture is varied and changeable the difficulties of correct interpretation are increased. It is just