The evolution of the electronic age has led to the development of numerous medical databases on the World Wide Web, offering search facilities on a particular subject and the ability to perform citation analysis. We compared the content coverage and practical utility of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. The official Web pages of the databases were used to extract information on the range of journals covered, search facilities and restrictions, and update frequency. We used the example of a keyword search to evaluate the usefulness of these databases in biomedical information retrieval and a specific published article to evaluate their utility in performing citation analysis. All databases were practical in use and offered numerous search facilities. PubMed and Google Scholar are accessed for free. The keyword search with PubMed offers optimal update frequency and includes online early articles; other databases can rate articles by number of citations, as an index of importance. For citation analysis, Scopus offers about 20% more coverage than Web of Science, whereas Google Scholar offers results of inconsistent accuracy. PubMed remains an optimal tool in biomedical electronic research. Scopus covers a wider journal range, of help both in keyword searching and citation analysis, but it is currently limited to recent articles (published after 1995) compared with Web of Science. Google Scholar, as for the Web in general, can help in the retrieval of even the most obscure information but its use is marred by inadequate, less often updated, citation information.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Leptospirosis is a re-emerging zoonosis of global importance and unique environmental and social correlations. Attempts at global co-ordination and recognition of the true burden of an infectious disease with significant mortality should be encouraged.

The authors provide evidence-based guidance on treating human brucellosis, and discuss the future clinical trials that would help address the controversies surrounding treatment.

Historically, there has been an exaggerated fear related to infection compared to other conditions. Infection possesses unique characteristics that account for this disproportionate degree of fear: it is transmitted rapidly and invisibly; historically, it has accounted for major morbidity and mortality; old forms re-emerge and new forms emerge; and both the media and society are often in awe. Because, in an outbreak, the patient is both a victim and a vector, and because there exists the potential for infringement of personal rights in order to control an outbreak, infection may be viewed (and has been depicted in popular culture) as a foreign invasion. During recent outbreaks, fear, denial, stigmatization and loss have been recorded in the implicated individuals. Stigmatization and discrimination may further involve ethical correlations, and attempts to adress these issues through activism may also have unwarranted effects. Public health initiatives can address the public's fears by increasing health literacy, which can contribute to reducing stigmatization.

Although a "One Health" approach has been successfully implemented for emerging infectious zoonotic diseases with pandemic potential, we still lack a conceptual framework to address enzootic diseases like brucellosis. The vast majority of published brucellosis studies in the developing world rely solely on serology. An important shortcoming of brucellosis serology is the impossibility to infer which (smooth) Brucella spp. induced antibodies in the host. In this respect, mixed farming and especially raising small ruminants along with cattle, a common practice in the developing world, is reported to be a risk factor and a central question that has to be answered is whether cattle are infected with B. melitensis or with B. abortus or with both Brucella species. Therefore the isolation, identification and molecular characterization of Brucella spp. in human and the different livestock species needs to be undertaken to define a sound conceptual framework, identify the source of infection and plan appropriate control measures.