Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Smith's new book on the kidney is welcomed. It is much more extensive in its coverage of the subject than was the previous book by the same author. In many respects this may be a short-coming. Although the discussions and reviews of experimental studies by others are extensive, the data are not presented critically in many instances. This is unfortunate, since readers are especially interested in the author's opinion of the validity and significance of much of the physiologic work of other investigators. This uncritical approach is frequently the result of an attempt to present a subject in great detail or to review the literature comprehensively on a subject, such as the kidney. Another shortcoming in the monograph is the inadequate presentation of clinical material on renal disease and renal function as found in general practice. It probably is difficult for one not managing patients to evaluate clinical papers critically
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
A 1951 study studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: