D-cycloserine augmentation of exposure-based cognitive behavior therapy for anxiety, obsessive-compulsive, and posttraumatic stress disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data

Importance: Whether and under which conditions D-cycloserine (DCS) augments the effects of exposure-based cognitive behavior therapy for anxiety, obsessive-compulsive, and posttraumatic stress disorders is unclear. Objective: To clarify whether DCS is superior to placebo in augmenting the effects of cognitive behavior therapy for anxiety, obsessive-compulsive, and posttraumatic stress disorders and to evaluate whether antidepressants interact with DCS and the effect of potential moderating variables. Data Sources: PubMed, EMBASE, and PsycINFO were searched from inception to February 10, 2016. Reference lists of previous reviews and meta-analyses and reports of randomized clinical trials were also checked. Study Selection: Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were (1) double-blind randomized clinical trials of DCS as an augmentation strategy for exposure-based cognitive behavior therapy and (2) conducted in humans diagnosed as having specific phobia, social anxiety disorder, panic disorder with or without agoraphobia, obsessive-compulsive disorder, or posttraumatic stress disorder. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Raw data were obtained from the authors and quality controlled. Data were ranked to ensure a consistent metric across studies (score range, 0-100). We used a 3-level multilevel model nesting repeated measures of outcomes within participants, who were nested within studies. Results: Individual participant data were obtained for 21 of 22 eligible trials, representing 1047 of 1073 eligible participants. When controlling for antidepressant use, participants receiving DCS showed greater improvement from pretreatment to posttreatment (mean difference, -3.62; 95% CI, -0.81 to -6.43; P = .01; d = -0.25) but not from pretreatment to midtreatment (mean difference, -1.66; 95% CI, -4.92 to 1.60; P = .32; d = -0.14) or from pretreatment to follow-up (mean difference, -2.98, 95% CI, -5.99 to 0.03; P = .05; d = -0.19). Additional analyses showed that participants assigned to DCS were associated with lower symptom severity than those assigned to placebo at posttreatment and at follow-up. Antidepressants did not moderate the effects of DCS. None of the prespecified patient-level or study-level moderators was associated with outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: D-cycloserine is associated with a small augmentation effect on exposure-based therapy. This effect is not moderated by the concurrent use of antidepressants. Further research is needed to identify patient and/or therapy characteristics associated with DCS response.2018-05-0

Interlaboratory comparison of methodologies for measuring the angle of incidence dependence of solar cells

The aim of this work is to compare angle of incidence (AOI) measurement setups for solar cells between laboratories with such capability. For the first time, we compare relative light transmission measurements among eight laboratories, whose measurement techniques include indoor and outdoor methods. We present the relative transmission measurements on three 156 mm x 156 mm crystalline-Si (c-Si) samples with different surface textures. The measurements are compared using the expanded uncertainties provided by each laboratory. Five of the eight labs showed an agreement better than ±2% to the weighted mean between AOIs from -75° to 70°. At AOIs of ±80° and ±85°, the same five labs showed a worst case deviation to the weighted mean of -3% to 5% and 0% to 18%, respectively. When measurement uncertainty is considered, the results show that measurements at the highest incidence angle of ±85° are problematic, as measurements from four out of the six labs reporting uncertainty were found non-comparable within their stated uncertainties. At 85° AOI a high to low range of up to 75% was observed between all eight laboratories

Traceable spectral irradiance measurements in photovoltaics: Results of the PTB and JRC spectroradiometer comparison using different light sources

JRC ESTI and PTB performed a comparison of their respective reference standard spectroradiometers, aiming at improving knowledge on equivalence of spectral irradiance measurements and resulting uncertainty in calibration of photovoltaic devices. The comparison was conducted at the JRC premises using different light sources in order to test the reference instruments under various real-world operating conditions. The measured sources included four standard lamps (two calibrated by PTB and two calibrated by NPL), global natural sunlight under clear sky conditions, a steady-state xenon-halogen solar simulator for solar cell calibration (Wacom) and a steady-state xenon large area solar simulator (Apollo). The PTB system is composed of three compact array spectroradiometers (CAS) equipped with Si, InGaAs, and extended range InGaAs detectors, respectively, in order to cover the wavelength range from 250 to 2150 nm. The JRC-ESTI used a rotating grating spectroradiometer composed of a single stage monochromator and a Si-PbS sandwich detector in order to cover a wavelength range from 300 to 2500 nm, and, for the natural sunlight measurements, additionally a system composed of three compact array spectroradiometers covering the wavelength range from 300 to 1700 nm. Before the comparison all instruments were calibrated in house by the owning institution using their respective procedures and traceability chains. The measured spectra were compared and deviations were found to generally be within combined uncertainties. Finally, exemplary spectral mismatch calculations were made to evaluate the impact of the deviations in spectral measurements on PV devices calibration. The deviations were mostly less than 0.5%, but in some cases exceeded 1%.JRC.C.2-Energy Efficiency and Renewable

Interlaboratory Comparison of the PV Module Energy Rating Standard IEC 61853-3

The IEC 61853 standard series "Photovoltaic (PV) module performance testing and energy rating" aims to provide a standardized measure for PV module performance, namely the Climate Specific Energy Rating (CSER). An algorithm to calculate CSER is specified in part 3 based on laboratory measurements defined in parts 1 and 2 as well as the climate data set given in part 4. To test the comparability and clarity of the algorithm in part 3, we share the same input data, obtained by measuring a standard photovoltaic module, among different research organizations. Each participant then uses their individual implementations of the algorithm to calculate the resulting CSER values. The initial blind comparison reveals differences of 0.133 (14.7%) in CSER between the ten different implementations of the algorithm. Despite the differences in CSER, an analysis of intermediate results revealed differences of less than 1% at each step of the calculation chain among at least three participants. Thereby, we identify the extrapolation of the power table, the handling of the differences in the wavelength bands between measurement and climate data set, and several coding errors as the three biggest sources for the differences. After discussing the results and comparing different approaches, all participants rework their implementations individually and compare the results two more times. In the third intercomparison, the differences are less than 0.029 (3.2%) in CSER. When excluding the remaining three outliers, the largest absolute difference between the other seven participants is 0.0037 (0.38%). Based on our findings we identified four recommendations for improvement of the standard series.Peer reviewe

Interlaboratory comparison of methodologies for measuring the angle of incidence dependence of solar cells

The aim of this work is to compare angle of incidence (AOI) measurement setups for solar cells between laboratories with such capability. For the first time, we compare relative light transmission measurements among eight laboratories, whose measurement techniques include indoor and outdoor methods. We present the relative transmission measurements on three 156 mm x 156 mm crystalline-Si (c-Si) samples with different surface textures. The measurements are compared using the expanded uncertainties provided by each laboratory. Five of the eight labs showed an agreement better than ±2% to the weighted mean between AOIs from -75° to 70°. At AOIs of ±80° and ±85°, the same five labs showed a worst case deviation to the weighted mean of -3% to 5% and 0% to 18%, respectively. When measurement uncertainty is considered, the results show that measurements at the highest incidence angle of ±85° are problematic, as measurements from four out of the six labs reporting uncertainty were found non-comparable within their stated uncertainties. At 85° AOI a high to low range of up to 75% was observed between all eight laboratories