English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

I have always been impressed with the fact that many patients who exhibit signs of pulmonary tuberculosis clinically and by x-ray plates give a negative test for tubercle bacilli constantly or most of the time.' There are, of course, various factors which are beyond control that cause this condition. However, there seemed to be one factor, the staining method used, which might be responsible for some of it. I therefore began to search the literature and found that other workers in this field have been similarly impressed, and have accused the Ziehl-Neelsen method of not always staining the tubercle bacilli; or stating it in another way, that tubercle bacilli are not all acid fast. In my search I have encountered various modifications of the Ziehl-Neelsen method, and some other methods of staining tubercle bacilli, and the following have been tried: 1. The Hermann method, which is a crystal violet stain.2 2. The Cronberger method, which is a modification of the Ziehl-Neelsen method.A 3. The Schulte-Tigges method,4 to be described later.

A COMPARISON OF THE ZIEHL-NEELSEN AND SCHULTE-TIGGES METHODS OF STAINING TUBERCLE BACILLI