On the Ethics of Trade Credit: Understanding Good Payment Practice in the Supply Chain

In spite of its commercial importance and signs of clear concern in public policy arenas, trade credit has not been subjected to systematic, extended analysis in the business ethics literature, even where suppliers as a stakeholder group have been considered. This paper makes the case for serious consideration of the ethics of trade credit and explores the issues surrounding slow payment of debts. It discusses trade debt as a kind of promise, but— noting that not all promises are good ones—goes on to develop an analysis of the ethics of trade credit grounded in an understanding of its fundamental purpose. Making a distinction between ‘‘operating’’ trade credit and ‘‘financial’’ trade credit, the paper provides an account of the maximum period for which it is appropriate for one company to delay payment to another from which it has purchased goods or services. The concern of commentators and policy makers that companies should not take too long to pay their debts is affirmed, but the understanding of what timely payment means is significantly finessed, with one conclusion being that, if debts have not already been settled according to acceptable standard terms of trade, cash should pass quickly back along the supply chain once the customer in the final product market has paid. The analysis has implications not only for companies that take credit but also for external parties that seek to rate companies or set regulations according to speed of payment—an approach that is shown to be misleadingly simplistic, albeit well intentioned. A corresponding important responsibility for suppliers, not to extend excessive credit (and thus act as a quasi-bank), also follows from the analysis developed. Having provided a novel analysis of an important business problem, the paper then discusses some of the related practical issues and makes suggestions for further research

Estimation of Ligament Loading and Anterior Tibial Translation in Healthy and ACL-Deficient Knees During Gait and the Influence of Increasing Tibial Slope Using EMG-Driven Approach

The purpose of this study was to develop a biomechanical model to estimate anterior tibial translation (ATT), anterior shear forces, and ligament loading in the healthy and anterior cruciate ligament (ACL)-deficient knee joint during gait. This model used electromyography (EMG), joint position, and force plate data as inputs to calculate ligament loading during stance phase. First, an EMG-driven model was used to calculate forces for the major muscles crossing the knee joint. The calculated muscle forces were used as inputs to a knee model that incorporated a knee–ligament model in order to solve for ATT and ligament forces. The model took advantage of using EMGs as inputs, and could account for the abnormal muscle activation patterns of ACL-deficient gait. We validated our model by comparing the calculated results with previous in vitro, in vivo, and numerical studies of healthy and ACL-deficient knees, and this gave us confidence on the accuracy of our model calculations. Our model predicted that ATT increased throughout stance phase for the ACL-deficient knee compared with the healthy knee. The medial collateral ligament functioned as the main passive restraint to anterior shear force in the ACL-deficient knee. Although strong co-contraction of knee flexors was found to help restrain ATT in the ACL-deficient knee, it did not counteract the effect of ACL rupture. Posterior inclination angle of the tibial plateau was found to be a crucial parameter in determining knee mechanics, and increasing the tibial slope inclination in our model would increase the resulting ATT and ligament forces in both healthy and ACL-deficient knees

The Effects of Cognitive Therapy versus ‘No Intervention’ for Major Depressive Disorder

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder afflicts an estimated 17% of individuals during their lifetimes at tremendous suffering and costs. Cognitive therapy may be an effective treatment option for major depressive disorder, but the effects have only had limited assessment in systematic reviews. METHODS/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We used The Cochrane systematic review methodology with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses of randomized trials comparing the effects of cognitive therapy versus 'no intervention' for major depressive disorder. Participants had to be older than 17 years with a primary diagnosis of major depressive disorder to be eligible. Altogether, we included 12 trials randomizing a total of 669 participants. All 12 trials had high risk of bias. Meta-analysis on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression showed that cognitive therapy significantly reduced depressive symptoms (four trials; mean difference -3.05 (95% confidence interval (Cl), -5.23 to -0.87; P<0.006)) compared with 'no intervention'. Trial sequential analysis could not confirm this result. Meta-analysis on the Beck Depression Inventory showed that cognitive therapy significantly reduced depressive symptoms (eight trials; mean difference on -4.86 (95% CI -6.44 to -3.28; P = 0.00001)). Trial sequential analysis on these data confirmed the result. Only a few trials reported on 'no remission', suicide inclination, suicide attempts, suicides, and adverse events without significant differences between the compared intervention groups. DISCUSSION: Cognitive therapy might be an effective treatment for depression measured on Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression and Beck Depression Inventory, but these outcomes may be overestimated due to risks of systematic errors (bias) and random errors (play of chance). Furthermore, the effects of cognitive therapy on no remission, suicidality, adverse events, and quality of life are unclear. There is a need for randomized trials with low risk of bias, low risk of random errors, and longer follow-up assessing both benefits and harms with clinically relevant outcome measures

The effects of cognitive therapy versus 'treatment as usual' in patients with major depressive disorder

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder afflicts an estimated 17% of individuals during their lifetimes at tremendous suffering and costs. Cognitive therapy may be an effective treatment option for major depressive disorder, but the effects have only had limited assessment in systematic reviews. METHODS/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Cochrane systematic review methodology, with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses of randomized trials, are comparing the effects of cognitive therapy versus 'treatment as usual' for major depressive disorder. To be included the participants had to be older than 17 years with a primary diagnosis of major depressive disorder. Altogether, we included eight trials randomizing a total of 719 participants. All eight trials had high risk of bias. Four trials reported data on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression and four trials reported data on the Beck Depression Inventory. Meta-analysis on the data from the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression showed that cognitive therapy compared with 'treatment as usual' significantly reduced depressive symptoms (mean difference -2.15 (95% confidence interval -3.70 to -0.60; P<0.007, no heterogeneity)). However, meta-analysis with both fixed-effect and random-effects model on the data from the Beck Depression Inventory (mean difference with both models -1.57 (95% CL -4.30 to 1.16; P = 0.26, I(2) = 0) could not confirm the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression results. Furthermore, trial sequential analysis on both the data from Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression and Becks Depression Inventory showed that insufficient data have been obtained. DISCUSSION: Cognitive therapy might not be an effective treatment for major depressive disorder compared with 'treatment as usual'. The possible treatment effect measured on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression is relatively small. More randomized trials with low risk of bias, increased sample sizes, and broader more clinically relevant outcomes are needed

Heterogeneity and changes in preferences for dying at home:a systematic review

Background Home-based models of hospice and palliative care are promoted with the argument that most people prefer to die at home. We examined the heterogeneity in preferences for home death and explored, for the first time, changes of preference with illness progression. Methods We searched for studies on adult preferences for place of care at the end of life or place of death in MEDLINE (1966-2011), EMBASE (1980-2011), psycINFO (1967-2011), CINAHL (1982-2011), six palliative care journals (2006-11) and reference lists. Standard criteria were used to grade study quality and evidence strength. Scatter plots showed the percentage preferring home death amongst patients, lay caregivers and general public, by study quality, year, weighted by sample size. Results 210 studies reported preferences of just over 100,000 people from 33 countries, including 34,021 patients, 19,514 caregivers and 29,926 general public members. 68% of studies with quantitative data were of low quality; only 76 provided the question used to elicit preferences. There was moderate evidence that most people prefer a home death-this was found in 75% of studies, 9/14 of those of high quality. Amongst the latter and excluding outliers, home preference estimates ranged 31% to 87% for patients (9 studies), 25% to 64% for caregivers (5 studies), 49% to 70% for the public (4 studies). 20% of 1395 patients in 10 studies (2 of high quality) changed their preference, but statistical significance was untested. Conclusions Controlling for methodological weaknesses, we found evidence that most people prefer to die at home. Around four fifths of patients did not change preference as their illness progressed. This supports focusing on home-based care for patients with advanced illness yet urges policy-makers to secure hospice and palliative care elsewhere for those who think differently or change their mind. Research must be clear on how preferences are elicited. There is an urgent need for studies examining change of preferences towards death

The impact of viral mutations on recognition by SARS-CoV-2 specific T cells.

We identify amino acid variants within dominant SARS-CoV-2 T cell epitopes by interrogating global sequence data. Several variants within nucleocapsid and ORF3a epitopes have arisen independently in multiple lineages and result in loss of recognition by epitope-specific T cells assessed by IFN-γ and cytotoxic killing assays. Complete loss of T cell responsiveness was seen due to Q213K in the A∗01:01-restricted CD8+ ORF3a epitope FTSDYYQLY207-215; due to P13L, P13S, and P13T in the B∗27:05-restricted CD8+ nucleocapsid epitope QRNAPRITF9-17; and due to T362I and P365S in the A∗03:01/A∗11:01-restricted CD8+ nucleocapsid epitope KTFPPTEPK361-369. CD8+ T cell lines unable to recognize variant epitopes have diverse T cell receptor repertoires. These data demonstrate the potential for T cell evasion and highlight the need for ongoing surveillance for variants capable of escaping T cell as well as humoral immunity.This work is supported by the UK Medical Research Council (MRC); Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences(CAMS) Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences (CIFMS), China; National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, and UK Researchand Innovation (UKRI)/NIHR through the UK Coro-navirus Immunology Consortium (UK-CIC). Sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 samples and collation of data wasundertaken by the COG-UK CONSORTIUM. COG-UK is supported by funding from the Medical ResearchCouncil (MRC) part of UK Research & Innovation (UKRI),the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR),and Genome Research Limited, operating as the Wellcome Sanger Institute. T.I.d.S. is supported by a Well-come Trust Intermediate Clinical Fellowship (110058/Z/15/Z). L.T. is supported by the Wellcome Trust(grant number 205228/Z/16/Z) and by theUniversity of Liverpool Centre for Excellence in Infectious DiseaseResearch (CEIDR). S.D. is funded by an NIHR GlobalResearch Professorship (NIHR300791). L.T. and S.C.M.are also supported by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Medical Countermeasures Initiative contract75F40120C00085 and the National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) inEmerging and Zoonotic Infections (NIHR200907) at University of Liverpool inpartnership with Public HealthEngland (PHE), in collaboration with Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine and the University of Oxford.L.T. is based at the University of Liverpool. M.D.P. is funded by the NIHR Sheffield Biomedical ResearchCentre (BRC – IS-BRC-1215-20017). ISARIC4C is supported by the MRC (grant no MC_PC_19059). J.C.K.is a Wellcome Investigator (WT204969/Z/16/Z) and supported by NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centreand CIFMS. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or MRC