RESUMO
BackgroundThis study aims to analyze the dynamics of the published articles and preprints of Covid-19 related literature from different scientific databases and sharing platforms. MethodsThe PubMed, Elsevier, and Research Gate (RG) databases were under consideration in this study over a specific time. Analyses were carried out on the number of publications as (a) function of time (day), (b) journals and (c) authors. Doubling time of the number of publications was analyzed for PubMed "all articles" and Elsevier published articles. Analyzed databases were (1A) PubMed "all articles" (01/12/2019-12/06/2020) (1B) PubMed Review articles (01/12/2019-2/5/2020) and (1C) PubMed Clinical Trials (01/01/2020-30/06/2020) (2) Elsevier all publications (01/12/2019-25/05/2020) (3) RG (Article, Pre Print, Technical Report) (15/04/2020-30/4/2020). FindingsTotal publications in the observation period for PubMed, Elsevier, and RG were 23000, 5898 and 5393 respectively. The average number of publications/day for PubMed, Elsevier and RG were 70.0 {+/-}128.6, 77.6{+/-}125.3 and 255.6{+/-}205.8 respectively. PubMed shows an avalanche in the number of publication around May 10, number of publications jumped from 6.0{+/-}8.4/day to 282.5{+/-}110.3/day. The average doubling time for PubMed, Elsevier, and RG was 10.3{+/-}4 days, 20.6 days, and 2.3{+/-}2.0 days respectively. In PubMed average articles/journal was 5.2{+/-}10.3 and top 20 authors representing 935 articles are of Chinese descent. The average number of publications per author for PubMed, Elsevier, and RG was 1.2{+/-}1.4, 1.3{+/-}0.9, and 1.1{+/-}0.4 respectively. Subgroup analysis, PubMed review articles mean and median review time for each article were <0|17{+/-}17|77> and 13.9 days respectively; and reducing at a rate of-0.21 days (count)/day. InterpretationAlthough the disease has been known for around 6 months, the number of publications related to the Covid-19 until now is huge and growing very fast with time. It is essential to rationalize the publications scientifically by the researchers, authors, reviewers, and publishing houses. FundingNone
RESUMO
For high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy, independent treatment verification is needed to ensure that the treatment is performed as per prescription. This study demonstrates dosimetric quality assurance of the HDR brachytherapy using a commercially available two-dimensional ion chamber array called IMatriXX, which has a detector separation of 0.7619 cm. The reference isodose length, step size, and source dwell positional accuracy were verified. A total of 24 dwell positions, which were verified for positional accuracy gave a total error (systematic and random) of -0.45 mm, with a standard deviation of 1.01 mm and maximum error of 1.8 mm. Using a step size of 5 mm, reference isodose length (the length of 100% isodose line) was verified for single and multiple catheters of same and different source loadings. An error ≤1 mm was measured in 57% of tests analyzed. Step size verification for 2, 3, 4, and 5 cm was performed and 70% of the step size errors were below 1 mm, with maximum of 1.2 mm. The step size ≤1 cm could not be verified by the IMatriXX as it could not resolve the peaks in dose profile.
