Skip to main contentU.S. National Library of MedicineU.S. National Library of Medicine

Profiles in Science
Pinterest badge Follow Profiles in Science on Pinterest!

The Virginia Apgar Papers

Letter from Virginia Apgar to L. Joseph Butterfield pdf (80,360 Bytes) transcript of pdf
Letter from Virginia Apgar to L. Joseph Butterfield
Butterfield and his residents at the University of Colorado Medical Center modified the order and wording of the Apgar score's five points, so that they spelled "APGAR." This epigram form proved a useful teaching device, and Butterfield passed it along to Apgar. As this response indicated, Apgar was delighted by the innovation. By the late 1960s it had become the standard for Apgar score forms.
Number of Image Pages:
2 (80,360 Bytes)
1961-08-01 (August 1, 1961)
Apgar, Virginia
Butterfield, L. Joseph
University of Colorado Medical Center. Department of Pediatrics
Original Repository: Mount Holyoke College. Archives and Special Collections. Virginia Apgar Papers [MS 0504]
Reproduced with permission of Peter A. Apgar.
Medical Subject Headings (MeSH):
Apgar Score
Infant, Newborn
Exhibit Category:
Second Career: The National Foundation-March of Dimes, 1959-1974
Metadata Record Letter from L. Joseph Butterfield to Virginia Apgar (July 27, 1961) pdf (72,325 Bytes) transcript of pdf
Box Number: 12
Folder Number: 2
Unique Identifier:
Document Type:
Letters (correspondence)
Physical Condition:
Series: Apgar Score Material 1959-1973
Folder: Correspondence February-August 1961
August 1, 1961
My dear Doctor Butterfield:
I chortled aloud when I saw the epigram. It is very clever and certainly original. You might like to hear a greeting I received at Boston Lying-In one day by a secretary, who said "I didn't know Apgar was a person, I thought it was just a thing."
In reply to your question about premies and the scoring system, I have extracted a few figures from a paper which I hope to get finished this month. In it are discussed 30,000 babies, of whom 698 are under 2000 grams. You are right that there is no predictive value of survival for tiny babies under 1000 grams, but in the other weight groups, there are highly significant differences.
If the three clinical states are compared (Poor-0,1,2,3; Fair-4,5,6; Good-7,8,9,10) using neonatal deaths as the criteria for comparison, the results are as follows:
Weight; No. of Infants; x2; d.F.; p.
501-1000 gms.; 97; 5.15; 2; .06>p>.05
1001-1500 gms.; 192; 32.8; 2; p<.001
1501-2000 gms.; 409; 37.7; 2; p<.001
2001-2500 gms.; 1724; 118.4; 2; p<.001
If, in the smallest group, groups of five and under (all the good babies) are omitted, since chi square is not reliable in groups of that size, the results do become significant. x2 -7.8974, d.f. =1, p<.01. Naturally, I believe the results in a group of 698 infants are more reliable than in 14 infants in Boston.
Stan James at Presbyterian Hospital has quite a bit of evidence for a positive correlation of score and respiratory distress. Murdina Desmond at Baylor has much information about the course of infants of varying scores.
Hope to see you the next time I am in Denver.
Sincerely yours,
Virginia Apgar, M.D., M.P.H.
Director, Division of Congenital Malformations
Metadata Last Modified Date:
Linked Data:
RDF/XML     JSON     JSON-LD     N3/Turtle     N-Triples