Theoretical and empirical research in technology acceptance, while acknowledging the importance of individual beliefs about the compatibility of a technology, has produced equivo-1 Debbie Compeau was the accepting senior editor for this paper. James Thong was the associate editor. Darren Meister served as a reviewer. Two other reviewers chose to remain anonymous. cal results. This study focuses on further conceptual development of this important belief in technology acceptance. Unlike much prior research that has focused on only a limited aspect of compatibility, we provide a more comprehensive conceptual definition that disaggregates the content of compatibility into four distinct and separable constructs: compatibility with preferred work style, compatibility with existing work practices, compatibility with prior experience, and compatibility with values. We suggest that the form of the multidimensional compatibility construct is best modeled as a multivariate structural model. Based on their conceptual definitions, we develop operational measures for the four compatibility variables. We assess the nomological validity of our conceptualization by situating it within the technology acceptance model. In contrast to prior research, which has regarded beliefs of compatibility as an independent antecedent of technology acceptance outcomes, we posit causal linkages not only among the four compatibility beliefs, but also between compatibility beliefs and usefulness, and ease of use. We test our theoretical model with a field sample of 278 users of a customer relationship management system in the context of a large bank. Scale validation indicates that the operational measures of compatibility developed in this study have acceptable psychometric properties, which support the existence of four distinct constructs. Results largely support the theorized relationships.

BackgroundOsteoarthritis (OA) is a common and debilitating chronic degenerative disease of the joints. Currently, cell-based therapy is being explored to address the repair of damaged articular cartilage in the knee joint.MethodsThe in vitro differentiation potential of adult human bone marrow-derived, cultured, pooled, allogeneic mesenchymal stromal cells (Stempeucel®) was determined by differentiating the cells toward the chondrogenic lineage and quantifying sulfated glycosaminoglycan (sGAG). The mono-iodoacetate (MIA)-induced preclinical model of OA has been used to demonstrate pain reduction and cartilage formation. In the clinical study, 60 OA patients were randomized to receive different doses of cells (25, 50, 75, or 150 million cells) or placebo. Stempeucel® was administered by intra-articular (IA) injection into the knee joint, followed by 2 ml hyaluronic acid (20 mg). Subjective evaluations—visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, intermittent and constant osteoarthritis pain (ICOAP), and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC-OA) index—were performed at baseline and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months of follow-up. Magnetic resonance imaging of the knee was performed at baseline, and at 6 and 12 months follow-up for cartilage evaluation.ResultsStempeucel® differentiated into the chondrogenic lineage in vitro with downregulation of Sox9 and upregulation of Col2A genes. Furthermore, Stempeucel® differentiated into chondrocytes and synthesized a significant amount of sGAG (30 ± 1.8 μg/μg GAG/DNA). In the preclinical model of OA, Stempeucel® reduced pain significantly and also repaired damaged articular cartilage in rats. In the clinical study, IA administration of Stempeucel® was safe, and a trend towards improvement was seen in the 25-million-cell dose group in all subjective parameters (VAS, ICOAP, andWOMAC-OA scores), although this was not statistically significant when compared to placebo. Adverse events were predominant in the higher dose groups (50, 75, and 150 million cells). Knee pain and swelling were the most common adverse events. The whole-organ magnetic resonance imaging score of the knee did not reveal any difference from baseline and the placebo group.ConclusionIntra-articular administration of Stempeucel® is safe. A twenty-five-million-cell dose may be the most effective among the doses tested for pain reduction. Clinical studies with a larger patient population are required to demonstrate a robust therapeutic efficacy of Stempeucel® in OA.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT01453738. Registered 13 October 2011.

The ongoing pandemic coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a matter of global concern. Environmental factors such as air pollution and smoking and comorbid conditions (hypertension, diabetes mellitus and underlying cardio-respiratory illness) likely increase the severity of COVID-19.

Background Global randomised controlled trials of the anti-IL-6 receptor antibody tocilizumab in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 have shown conflicting results but potential decreases in time to discharge and burden on intensive care. Tocilizumab reduced progression to mechanical ventilation and death in a trial population enriched for racial and ethnic minorities. We aimed to investigate whether tocilizumab treatment could prevent COVID-19 progression in the first multicentre randomised controlled trial of tocilizumab done entirely in a lower-middle-income country. Methods COVINTOC is an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial done at 12 public and private hospitals across India. Adults (aged ≥18 years) admitted to hospital with moderate to severe COVID-19 (Indian Ministry of Health grading) confirmed by positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR result were randomly assigned (1:1 block randomisation) to receive tocilizumab 6 mg/kg plus standard care (the tocilizumab group) or standard care alone (the standard care group). The primary endpoint was progression of COVID-19 (from moderate to severe or from severe to death) up to day 14 in the modified intention-to-treat population of all participants who had at least one post-baseline assessment for the primary endpoint. Safety was assessed in all randomly assigned patients. The trial is completed and registered with the Clinical Trials Registry India (CTRI/2020/05/025369). Findings 180 patients were recruited between May 30, 2020, and Aug 31, 2020, and randomly assigned to the tocilizumab group (n=90) or the standard care group (n=90). One patient randomly assigned to the standard care group inadvertently received tocilizumab at baseline and was included in the tocilizumab group for all analyses. One patient randomly assigned to the standard care group withdrew consent after the baseline visit and did not receive any study medication and was not included in the modified intention-to-treat population but was still included in safety analyses. 75 (82%) of 91 in the tocilizumab group and 68 (76%) of 89 in the standard care group completed 28 days of follow-up. Progression of COVID-19 up to day 14 occurred in eight (9%) of 91 patients in the tocilizumab group and 11 (13%) of 88 in the standard care group (difference −3·71 [95% CI −18·23 to 11·19]; p=0·42). 33 (36%) of 91 patients in the tocilizumab group and 22 (25%) of 89 patients in the standard care group had adverse events; 18 (20%) and 15 (17%) had serious adverse events. The most common adverse event was acute respiratory distress syndrome, reported in seven (8%) patients in each group. Grade 3 adverse events were reported in two (2%) patients in the tocilizumab group and five (6%) patients in the standard care group. There were no grade 4 adverse events. Serious adverse events were reported in 18 (20%) patients in the tocilizumab group and 15 (17%) in the standard care group; 13 (14%) and 15 (17%) patients died during t...

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to a large volume of publications, a barrage of non-reviewed preprints on various professional repositories and a slew of retractions in a short amount of time. Methods: We conducted an e-survey using a cloud-based website to gauge the potential sources of trustworthy information and misinformation and analyzed researchers', clinicians', and academics' attitude toward unpublished items, and pre-and post-publication quality checks in this challenging time. Results: Among 128 respondents (mean age, 43.2 years; M:F, 1.1:1), 60 (46.9%) were scholarly journal editors and editorial board members. Social media channels were distinguished as the most important sources of information as well as misinformation (81 [63.3%] and 86 [67.2%]). Nearly two in five (62, 48.4%) respondents blamed reviewers, editors, and misinterpretation by readers as additional contributors alongside authors for misinformation. A higher risk of plagiarism was perceived by the majority (70, 58.6%), especially plagiarism of ideas (64.1%) followed by inappropriate paraphrasing (54.7%). Opinion was divided on the utility of preprints for changing practice and changing retraction rates during the pandemic period, and higher rejections were not supported by most (76.6%) while the importance of peer review was agreed upon by a majority (80, 62.5%). More stringent screening by journal editors (61.7%), and facilitating open access plagiarism software (59.4%), including Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based algorithms (43.8%) were among the suggested solutions. Most (74.2%) supported the need to launch a specialist bibliographic database for COVID-19, with information indexed (62.3%), available as open-access (82.8%), after expanding search terms (52.3%) and following due verification by academics (66.4%), and journal editors (52.3%). Conclusion: While identifying social media as a potential source of misinformation on COVID-19, and a perceived high risk of plagiarism, more stringent peer review and skilled post-publication promotion are advisable. Journal editors should play a more active role in streamlining publication and promotion of trustworthy information on COVID-19.