Blood cultures for the diagnosis of multidrug-resistant and extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis among HIV-infected patients from rural South Africa: a cross-sectional study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The yield of mycobacterial blood cultures for multidrug-resistant (MDR) and extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis (XDR-TB) among drug-resistant TB suspects has not been described.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We performed a retrospective, cross-sectional analysis to determine the yield of mycobacterial blood cultures for MDR-TB and XDR-TB among patients suspected of drug-resistant TB from rural South Africa. Secondary outcomes included risk factors of <it>Mycobacterium tuberculosis </it>bacteremia and the additive yield of mycobacterial blood cultures compared to sputum culture.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>From 9/1/2006 to 12/31/2008, 130 patients suspected of drug-resistant TB were evaluated with mycobacterial blood culture. Each patient had a single mycobacterial blood culture with 41 (32%) positive for <it>M. tuberculosis</it>, of which 20 (49%) were XDR-TB and 8 (20%) were MDR-TB. One hundred fourteen (88%) patients were known to be HIV-infected. Patients on antiretroviral therapy were significantly less likely to have a positive blood culture for <it>M. tuberculosis </it>(p = 0.002). The diagnosis of MDR or XDR-TB was made by blood culture alone in 12 patients.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Mycobacterial blood cultures provided an additive yield for diagnosis of drug-resistant TB in patients with HIV from rural South Africa. The use of mycobacterial blood cultures should be considered in all patients suspected of drug-resistant TB in similar settings.</p

Review of Google scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus search results: The case of inclusive education research

This study presents a bibliometric analysis of research on inclusive education focusing on the development, scholarly publishing, and various influences on the body of knowledge (information sources, authors, institutions, and countries). Data for this study were collected from three reference and citation-enhanced indexing databases, i.e., Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science. There was diversity in terms of variations of results from one database to the other. This research will be valuable for academia and researchers alike in the field of inclusive education. The researchers in scholarly communication research area, policy makers, and those involved in measuring researchers’ performance for promotions and awards on the basis of publications and citations indicators may also benefit