1
|
Malinda RR, Mishra D, Bajaj R, Khaliduzzaman A. Exploring the current dynamics of preprints. Curr Med Res Opin 2024:1-5. [PMID: 38700241 DOI: 10.1080/03007995.2024.2351144] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/14/2024] [Accepted: 04/30/2024] [Indexed: 05/05/2024]
Abstract
Preprints are non-peer-reviewed and publicly available articles for open and transparent research communication. Preprint servers host the submission of such manuscripts, and despite the presence of established preprint servers, their numbers have continued to rise in recent times. A steep increasing pattern in posted preprints and their accommodating servers has been observed over the last decade. In this article, we explored the global trends in the preprint adoption and its involvement in promoting open and transparent research findings across various domains. We further emphasized the importance of preprinting, highlighting its significant impact during the pandemic through effective information sharing, and advocating for its broader integration in scholarly communication.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Raj Rajeshwar Malinda
- Indraprastha Institute of Information Technology Delhi, New Delhi, India
- University of Hyogo, Kobe, Hyogo Prefecture, Japan
| | | | - Ruchika Bajaj
- Cardiovascular Research Institute, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA
| | - Alin Khaliduzzaman
- Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana-Champaign, Illinois, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Fleerackers A, Chtena N, Pinfield S, Alperin JP, Barata G, Oliveira M, Peters I. Making science public: a review of journalists' use of Open Access research. F1000Res 2024; 12:512. [PMID: 37920454 PMCID: PMC10618641 DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.133710.1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 12/13/2023] [Indexed: 11/04/2023] Open
Abstract
Science journalists are uniquely positioned to increase the societal impact of open research outputs by contextualizing and communicating findings in ways that highlight their relevance and implications for non-specialist audiences. Yet, it is unclear to what degree journalists use open research outputs, such as open access publications or preprints, in their reporting; what factors motivate or constrain this use; and how the recent surge in openly available research seen during the COVID-19 pandemic has affected this. This article examines these questions through a review of relevant literature published from 2018 onwards-particularly literature relating to the COVID-19 pandemic-as well as seminal articles outside the search dates. We find that research that explicitly examines journalists' engagement with open access publications or preprints is scarce, with existing literature mostly addressing the topic tangentially or as a secondary concern, rather than a primary focus. Still, the limited body of evidence points to several factors that may hamper journalists' use of these outputs and thus warrant further exploration. These include an overreliance on traditional criteria for evaluating scientific quality; concerns about the trustworthiness of open research outputs; and challenges using and verifying the findings. We also find that, while the COVID-19 pandemic encouraged journalists to explore open research outputs such as preprints, the extent to which these explorations will become established journalistic practices remains unclear. Furthermore, we note that current research is overwhelmingly authored and focused on the Global North, and the United States specifically. We conclude with recommendations for future research that attend to issues of equity and diversity, and more explicitly examine the intersections of open access and science journalism.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alice Fleerackers
- Scholarly Communications Lab, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
- Interdisclipinary Studies, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| | - Natascha Chtena
- Scholarly Communications Lab, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
- School of Publishing, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| | | | - Juan Pablo Alperin
- Scholarly Communications Lab, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
- School of Publishing, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| | - Germana Barata
- Laboratory of Advanced Studies in Journalism, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, State of São Paulo, Brazil
| | - Monique Oliveira
- Laboratory of Advanced Studies in Journalism, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, State of São Paulo, Brazil
| | - Isabella Peters
- ZBW – Leibniz Information Center for Economics, Kiel, Schleswig-Holstein, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Sommer I, Sunder-Plassmann V, Ratajczak P, Emprechtinger R, Dobrescu A, Griebler U, Gartlehner G. Full publication of preprint articles in prevention research: an analysis of publication proportions and results consistency. Sci Rep 2023; 13:17034. [PMID: 37813909 PMCID: PMC10562443 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-44291-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/12/2023] [Accepted: 10/05/2023] [Indexed: 10/11/2023] Open
Abstract
There is concern that preprint articles will lead to an increase in the amount of scientifically invalid work available. The objectives of this study were to determine the proportion of prevention preprints published within 12 months, the consistency of the effect estimates and conclusions between preprint and published articles, and the reasons for the nonpublication of preprints. Of the 329 prevention preprints that met our eligibility criteria, almost half (48.9%) were published in a peer-reviewed journal within 12 months of being posted. While 16.8% published preprints showed some change in the magnitude of the primary outcome effect estimate, 4.4% were classified as having a major change. The style or wording of the conclusion changed in 42.2%, the content in 3.1%. Preprints on chemoprevention, with a cross-sectional design, and with public and noncommercial funding had the highest probabilities of publication. The main reasons for the nonpublication of preprints were journal rejection or lack of time. The reliability of preprint articles for evidence-based decision-making is questionable. Less than half of the preprint articles on prevention research are published in a peer-reviewed journal within 12 months, and significant changes in effect sizes and/or conclusions are still possible during the peer-review process.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Isolde Sommer
- Cochrane Austria, Department for Evidence-Based Medicine and Evaluation, Danube University Krems, Krems, Austria.
| | - Vincent Sunder-Plassmann
- Cochrane Austria, Department for Evidence-Based Medicine and Evaluation, Danube University Krems, Krems, Austria
| | - Piotr Ratajczak
- Department of Pharmacoeconomics and Social Pharmacy, Poznań University of Medical Sciences, Poznań, Poland
| | | | - Andreea Dobrescu
- Cochrane Austria, Department for Evidence-Based Medicine and Evaluation, Danube University Krems, Krems, Austria
| | - Ursula Griebler
- Cochrane Austria, Department for Evidence-Based Medicine and Evaluation, Danube University Krems, Krems, Austria
| | - Gerald Gartlehner
- Cochrane Austria, Department for Evidence-Based Medicine and Evaluation, Danube University Krems, Krems, Austria
- RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Arjuman A. A perspective on new dilemmas in scientific publishing in the time of a pandemic. Indian J Med Microbiol 2023; 45:100366. [PMID: 37019728 PMCID: PMC10069637 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmmb.2023.100366] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/09/2022] [Revised: 03/16/2023] [Accepted: 03/21/2023] [Indexed: 04/05/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The COVID-19 pandemic exerted manifold pressures on the public health framework globally, but it also in a way unified different genres and allowed for strategizing and implementing regulatory decisions as best as possible, especially in India. There is an unmet need for such a unified and integrative approach in the area of scientific publishing which has also been touched by various dilemmas, either emergent or propagated during this pandemic. OBJECTIVES This article intends to re-visit some of the dilemmas in scientific publishing, which have taken centre stage owing to a healthcare emergency, with the objective of highlighting an unmet need for developing unified criteria for research conduction and publishing from a futuristic view point, as one is not without the other. CONTENT While a fast track delivery of research data has been a priority for research journals, the due pressures in the process management of the same while skimming the ethical boundaries of responsible mediation through a Journal platform has remained a challenge globally for various reasons. Furthermore, the inevitability of a healthcare emergency inadvertently led to some cumulative off-target effects including accumulation of research waste, diminishing validity of academic metrics, short data set publications, hasty zombie clinical trials publishing merely an overview of the actual data, etc, which are major issues not only for journal Editors or the research community as a whole, but also for regulatory authorities and policy makers. As a step towards future pandemic preparedness, strategizing and streamlining research and publication processes ensuing responsible reporting should be treated as a topic of paramount significance. Hence, through debating on these dilemmas as well as potential integrative approaches, unified guiding criteria in the area of scientific publishing may be developed in lieu of preparedness for such future pandemic scenarios.
Collapse
|
5
|
Rzayeva N, Henriques SO, Pinfield S, Waltman L. The experiences of COVID-19 preprint authors: a survey of researchers about publishing and receiving feedback on their work during the pandemic. PeerJ 2023; 11:e15864. [PMID: 37637174 PMCID: PMC10452616 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.15864] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/15/2022] [Accepted: 07/17/2023] [Indexed: 08/29/2023] Open
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic caused a rise in preprinting, triggered by the need for open and rapid dissemination of research outputs. We surveyed authors of COVID-19 preprints to learn about their experiences with preprinting their work and also with publishing their work in a peer-reviewed journal. Our research had the following objectives: 1. to learn about authors' experiences with preprinting, their motivations, and future intentions; 2. to consider preprints in terms of their effectiveness in enabling authors to receive feedback on their work; 3. to compare the impact of feedback on preprints with the impact of comments of editors and reviewers on papers submitted to journals. In our survey, 78% of the new adopters of preprinting reported the intention to also preprint their future work. The boost in preprinting may therefore have a structural effect that will last after the pandemic, although future developments will also depend on other factors, including the broader growth in the adoption of open science practices. A total of 53% of the respondents reported that they had received feedback on their preprints. However, more than half of the feedback was received through "closed" channels-privately to the authors. This means that preprinting was a useful way to receive feedback on research, but the value of feedback could be increased further by facilitating and promoting "open" channels for preprint feedback. Almost a quarter of the feedback received by respondents consisted of detailed comments, showing the potential of preprint feedback to provide valuable comments on research. Respondents also reported that, compared to preprint feedback, journal peer review was more likely to lead to major changes to their work, suggesting that journal peer review provides significant added value compared to feedback received on preprints.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Narmin Rzayeva
- Research on Research Institute (RoRI), London, United Kingdom
- Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands
- Information Technologies and Systems Department, Azerbaijan University of Architecture and Construction, Baku, Azerbaijan
| | - Susana Oliveira Henriques
- Research on Research Institute (RoRI), London, United Kingdom
- Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands
- Central Library, Lisbon University Medical School, Lisbon, Portugal
| | - Stephen Pinfield
- Research on Research Institute (RoRI), London, United Kingdom
- Information School, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom
| | - Ludo Waltman
- Research on Research Institute (RoRI), London, United Kingdom
- Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Kaul V, Chahal J, Schrarstzhaupt IN, Geduld H, Shen Y, Cecconi M, Siqueira AM, Markoski MM, Kawano-Dourado L. Lessons Learned from a Global Perspective of Coronavirus Disease-2019. Clin Chest Med 2023; 44:435-449. [PMID: 37085231 PMCID: PMC9684102 DOI: 10.1016/j.ccm.2022.11.020] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
Coronavirus disease-2019 has impacted the world globally. Countries and health care organizations across the globe responded to this unprecedented public health crisis in a varied manner in terms of public health and social measures, vaccination development and rollout, the conduct of research, developments of therapeutics, sharing of information, and in how they continue to deal with the widespread aftermath. This article reviews the various elements of the global response to the pandemic, focusing on the lessons learned and strategies to consider during future pandemics.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Viren Kaul
- Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Crouse Health/Upstate Medical University, 736 Irving Avenue, Syracuse, NY, 13210, USA
| | - Japjot Chahal
- Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, SUNY Upstate Medical University, 750 East Adams Street, Syracuse, NY, 13210, USA
| | - Isaac N Schrarstzhaupt
- Capixaba Institute of Health Education, Research and Innovation (ICEPi), Rua Duque de Caxias, 267 - Centro, Vitória/ES, 29010-120, Brazil
| | - Heike Geduld
- Division of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Room 5006 Clinical Building, Stellenbosch University Tygerberg Campus, Cape Town 7505, South Africa
| | - Yinzhong Shen
- Department of Infection and Immunity, Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center, Fudan University, 2901 Caolang Road, Jinshan District, Shanghai, 201508, China
| | - Maurizio Cecconi
- Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, IRCCS Instituto Clinico Humanitas, Via Manzoni 56, Rozzano (Milano), Italy
| | - Andre M Siqueira
- Instituto Nacional de Infectologia Evandro Chagas, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Avenida Brasil 4365, CEP 21040-900, Rio de Janeiro RJ Brazil
| | - Melissa M Markoski
- UFCSPA - Federal University of Health Sciences of Porto Alegre. Sarmento Leite, 245 - Centro Histórico, Porto Alegre - RS, 90050-170, Brazil
| | - Leticia Kawano-Dourado
- Hcor Research Institute, Hospital do Coracao, R. Des Eliseu Guilherme, 200, 8o andar, Sao Paulo, SP 04004-030, Brazil; Pulmonary Division, InCor, University of Sao Paulo.
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Alfonso F, Crea F. Preprints: a game changer in scientific publications? Eur Heart J 2023; 44:171-173. [PMID: 36420647 DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehac665] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Fernando Alfonso
- Department of Cardiology, Hospital Universitario de La Princesa, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Princesa (IIS-IP), Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, CIBER-CV, C/Diego de León 62, Spain
| | - Filippo Crea
- Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A, Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy.,Department of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Sciences, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Trkulja V. Why we should not recommend or offer fluvoxamine to COVID-19 patients? Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2023; 79:321-322. [PMID: 36550263 PMCID: PMC9780092 DOI: 10.1007/s00228-022-03447-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/29/2022] [Accepted: 12/18/2022] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Vladimir Trkulja
- grid.4808.40000 0001 0657 4636Department of Pharmacology, Zagreb University School of Medicine, Šalata 11, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Kapp P, Esmail L, Ghosn L, Ravaud P, Boutron I. Transparency and reporting characteristics of COVID-19 randomized controlled trials. BMC Med 2022; 20:363. [PMID: 36154932 PMCID: PMC9510360 DOI: 10.1186/s12916-022-02567-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/19/2022] [Accepted: 09/13/2022] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are essential to support clinical decision-making. We aimed (1) to assess and compare the reporting characteristics of RCTs between preprints and peer-reviewed publications and (2) to assess whether reporting improves after the peer review process for all preprints subsequently published in peer-reviewed journals. METHODS We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and L·OVE COVID-19 platform to identify all reports of RCTs assessing pharmacological treatments of COVID-19, up to May 2021. We extracted indicators of transparency (e.g., trial registration, data sharing intentions) and assessed the completeness of reporting (i.e., some important CONSORT items, conflict of interest, ethical approval) using a standardized data extraction form. We also identified paired reports published in preprint and peer-reviewed publications. RESULTS We identified 251 trial reports: 121 (48%) were first published in peer-reviewed journals, and 130 (52%) were first published as preprints. Transparency was poor. About half of trials were prospectively registered (n = 140, 56%); 38% (n = 95) made their full protocols available, and 29% (n = 72) provided access to their statistical analysis plan report. A data sharing statement was reported in 68% (n = 170) of the reports of which 91% stated their willingness to share. Completeness of reporting was low: only 32% (n = 81) of trials completely defined the pre-specified primary outcome measures; 57% (n = 143) reported the process of allocation concealment. Overall, 51% (n = 127) adequately reported the results for the primary outcomes while only 14% (n = 36) of trials adequately described harms. Primary outcome(s) reported in trial registries and published reports were inconsistent in 49% (n = 104) of trials; of them, only 15% (n = 16) disclosed outcome switching in the report. There were no major differences between preprints and peer-reviewed publications. Of the 130 RCTs published as preprints, 78 were subsequently published in a peer-reviewed journal. There was no major improvement after the journal peer review process for most items. CONCLUSIONS Transparency, completeness, and consistency of reporting of COVID-19 clinical trials were insufficient both in preprints and peer-reviewed publications. A comparison of paired reports published in preprint and peer-reviewed publication did not indicate major improvement.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Philipp Kapp
- Université Paris Cité, Inserm, INRAE, Centre of Research in Epidemiology and Statistics (CRESS), F-75004, Paris, France.,Centre d'Épidémiologie Clinique, AP-HP, Hôpital Hôtel-Dieu, F-75004, Paris, France.,Cochrane France, F-75004, Paris, France.,Institute for Evidence in Medicine, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, D-79110, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Laura Esmail
- Université Paris Cité, Inserm, INRAE, Centre of Research in Epidemiology and Statistics (CRESS), F-75004, Paris, France.,Centre d'Épidémiologie Clinique, AP-HP, Hôpital Hôtel-Dieu, F-75004, Paris, France.,Cochrane France, F-75004, Paris, France
| | - Lina Ghosn
- Université Paris Cité, Inserm, INRAE, Centre of Research in Epidemiology and Statistics (CRESS), F-75004, Paris, France.,Centre d'Épidémiologie Clinique, AP-HP, Hôpital Hôtel-Dieu, F-75004, Paris, France.,Cochrane France, F-75004, Paris, France
| | - Philippe Ravaud
- Université Paris Cité, Inserm, INRAE, Centre of Research in Epidemiology and Statistics (CRESS), F-75004, Paris, France.,Centre d'Épidémiologie Clinique, AP-HP, Hôpital Hôtel-Dieu, F-75004, Paris, France.,Cochrane France, F-75004, Paris, France
| | - Isabelle Boutron
- Université Paris Cité, Inserm, INRAE, Centre of Research in Epidemiology and Statistics (CRESS), F-75004, Paris, France. .,Centre d'Épidémiologie Clinique, AP-HP, Hôpital Hôtel-Dieu, F-75004, Paris, France. .,Cochrane France, F-75004, Paris, France.
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
The influence of Covid-19 on publications in economics: bibliometric evidence from five working paper series. Scientometrics 2022; 127:5175-5189. [PMID: 35975132 PMCID: PMC9372987 DOI: 10.1007/s11192-022-04473-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/22/2021] [Accepted: 07/08/2022] [Indexed: 11/01/2022]
Abstract
AbstractWe compare Covid-related working papers in economics to non-Covid-related working papers in four dimensions. Based on five well-known working papers series and data from the RePEc website, we find that Covid papers mainly cover topics in macroeconomics and health, they are written by larger teams than non-Covid papers, are more often downloaded and they receive more citations relative to non-Covid papers.
Collapse
|
11
|
Uchida S, Yu J, Goldman M, Asmis R, Yang X, Aikawa E, Bourantas C, Aikawa M, Tevaearai Stahel H. Editorial: Research reproducibility and preventing fraud. Front Cardiovasc Med 2022; 9:979467. [PMID: 35979020 PMCID: PMC9376614 DOI: 10.3389/fcvm.2022.979467] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/27/2022] [Accepted: 07/11/2022] [Indexed: 12/05/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Shizuka Uchida
- Center for RNA Medicine, Department of Clinical Medicine, Aalborg University, Copenhagen, Denmark
- *Correspondence: Shizuka Uchida ;
| | - Jun Yu
- Department of Cardiovascular Sciences and Center for Metabolic Disease Research, Lewis Katz School of Medicine, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, United States
| | - Michel Goldman
- Institute for Interdisciplinary Innovation in Healthcare, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Reto Asmis
- Department of Internal Medicine, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, United States
| | - Xiaofeng Yang
- Department of Cardiovascular Sciences, Centers for Metabolic Disease Research, Temple University Lewis Katz School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, United States
| | - Elena Aikawa
- Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine, Center for Interdisciplinary Cardiovascular Sciences and Center for Excellence in Vascular Biology, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States
| | - Christos Bourantas
- Institute of Cardiovascular Science, University College London, London, United Kingdom
- Department of Cardiology, Barts Heart Centre, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom
- Centre for Cardiovascular Medicine and Devices, William Harvey Research Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Masanori Aikawa
- Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine, Center for Interdisciplinary Cardiovascular Sciences and Center for Excellence in Vascular Biology, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States
| | | |
Collapse
|
12
|
Camargo Jr. KRD, Coeli CM. The challenge of preprints for public health. CAD SAUDE PUBLICA 2022; 38:e00168222. [DOI: 10.1590/0102-311xen168222] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/06/2022] [Accepted: 09/08/2022] [Indexed: 11/26/2022] Open
|