Journal: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Article Title: Interventions for increasing acceptance of local anaesthetic in children and adolescents having dental treatment

doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011024.pub2

Figure Lengend Snippet: Outcome measures of included studies

Article Snippet: Lee 2013 , Distress: SEM scale, 3 categories; intraoperatively, investigator , Comfort: 76 Mild pain: 3 Moderate pain: 1 Severe pain: 0 , Comfort: 32 Mild pain: 12 Moderate pain: 1 Severe pain: 9 , , "A significant difference existed regarding pain response between the alternative and conventional groups based on SEM ratings (P < 0.000)" (Chi 2 ).

Techniques: Modification

Journal: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Article Title: Interventions for increasing acceptance of local anaesthetic in children and adolescents having dental treatment

doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011024.pub2

Figure Lengend Snippet: Comparison 2: pre‐cooling of the injection site versus conventional treatment

Article Snippet: Lee 2013 , Distress: SEM scale, 3 categories; intraoperatively, investigator , Comfort: 76 Mild pain: 3 Moderate pain: 1 Severe pain: 0 , Comfort: 32 Mild pain: 12 Moderate pain: 1 Severe pain: 9 , , "A significant difference existed regarding pain response between the alternative and conventional groups based on SEM ratings (P < 0.000)" (Chi 2 ).

Techniques: Comparison, Injection, Control

Journal: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Article Title: Interventions for increasing acceptance of local anaesthetic in children and adolescents having dental treatment

doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011024.pub2

Figure Lengend Snippet: Comparison 6: counter‐stimulation/distraction versus conventional treatment

Article Snippet: Lee 2013 , Distress: SEM scale, 3 categories; intraoperatively, investigator , Comfort: 76 Mild pain: 3 Moderate pain: 1 Severe pain: 0 , Comfort: 32 Mild pain: 12 Moderate pain: 1 Severe pain: 9 , , "A significant difference existed regarding pain response between the alternative and conventional groups based on SEM ratings (P < 0.000)" (Chi 2 ).

Techniques: Comparison, Control, Injection, Modification, Activity Assay, Mann-Whitney U-Test

Journal: Solar Physics

Article Title: Resolving Differences in Absolute Irradiance Measurements Between the SOHO/CELIAS/SEM and the SDO/EVE

doi: 10.1007/s11207-014-0519-5

Figure Lengend Snippet: Photon flux time-series in the 26 – 34 nm band pass measured with the Version 3.1 SOHO/SEM first-order channels (small black circles) and in the 0.1 – 50 nm band pass measured with the SOHO/SEM zeroth-order channel (small gray circles). Sounding-rocket calibration measurements include RGIC full 5 – 57.5 nm band (triangles), SEM sounding-rocket clone 26 – 34 nm band (squares), RGIC scaled to 26 – 34 nm (diamonds), and EVE/ESP sounding-rocket clone (large gray circles).

Article Snippet: The instrument response function of the SEM instrument onboard SOHO was measured pre-launch at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Synchrotron Ultraviolet Radiation Facility (SURF III).

Techniques:

Journal: Solar Physics

Article Title: Resolving Differences in Absolute Irradiance Measurements Between the SOHO/CELIAS/SEM and the SDO/EVE

doi: 10.1007/s11207-014-0519-5

Figure Lengend Snippet: SOHO/SEM first-order response function used for irradiance calculation in Version 3.1 (black curve partially obscured by the gray curve, which is identical over the wavelength range from 26 to 34 nm) and in the updated version reported here (gray line). The SOLERS22 spectrum is shown for reference (dotted line).

Article Snippet: The instrument response function of the SEM instrument onboard SOHO was measured pre-launch at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Synchrotron Ultraviolet Radiation Facility (SURF III).

Techniques:

Journal: Solar Physics

Article Title: Resolving Differences in Absolute Irradiance Measurements Between the SOHO/CELIAS/SEM and the SDO/EVE

doi: 10.1007/s11207-014-0519-5

Figure Lengend Snippet: Soft X-ray (top panel) and EUV (bottom panel) portions of the SOHO/SEM zeroth-order response function used for irradiance calculations in both Version 3.1 and in the updated version reported here (black line). The SOLERS22 spectrum is shown for reference (dotted line, units are arbitrary but consistent between the top and bottom panels).

Article Snippet: The instrument response function of the SEM instrument onboard SOHO was measured pre-launch at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Synchrotron Ultraviolet Radiation Facility (SURF III).

Techniques:

Journal: Solar Physics

Article Title: Resolving Differences in Absolute Irradiance Measurements Between the SOHO/CELIAS/SEM and the SDO/EVE

doi: 10.1007/s11207-014-0519-5

Figure Lengend Snippet: A comparison of the SOLERS22 fixed reference spectrum (dotted line) to measured SDO/EVE reference spectra (black line) for low (30 April 2010, top panel), medium (21 March 2013, middle panel), and high (11 November 2011, bottom panel) levels of solar activity – the SDO/EVE spectra shown are the daily average spectra for the specified day. In the top panel the SOHO/SEM first-order response function (dashed line) is shown for reference. Time-independent, characteristic differences exist between the spectra including a smaller contribution from the wavelength bins centered on 28.5 nm and 30.5 for the EVE/MEGS spectrum for all activity levels.

Article Snippet: The instrument response function of the SEM instrument onboard SOHO was measured pre-launch at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Synchrotron Ultraviolet Radiation Facility (SURF III).

Techniques: Comparison, Activity Assay

Journal: Solar Physics

Article Title: Resolving Differences in Absolute Irradiance Measurements Between the SOHO/CELIAS/SEM and the SDO/EVE

doi: 10.1007/s11207-014-0519-5

Figure Lengend Snippet: (a) A comparison of the updated SOHO/SEM 26 – 34 nm irradiance time-series (black curve) with SOHO/SEM Version 3.1 (dotted black curve), SDO/EVE/MEGS (dotted black curve) Version 2 spectra integrated over the 26 – 34 nm band pass, and EVE ESP ch9 (gray curve). (b) Ratio of the updated SOHO/SEM daily average irradiances over those of SOHO/SEM Version 3.1. (c) Ratios of the SOHO/SEM Version 3.1 daily average irradiances over the daily average SDO/EVE/ESP ch9 irradiances compared with similar ratios based on the updated SOHO/SEM. (d) Ratios of the SOHO/SEM Version 3.1 daily average irradiances over the daily average integrated SDO/EVE/MEGS spectra compared with similar ratios based on the updated SOHO/SEM. Mean ratio levels are shown as dashed lines in panels (c) and (d). The broader response function and the use of MEGS reference spectra for the updated SOHO/SEM irradiances result in significantly better agreement with both SDO/EVE channels. Divergence between the SOHO/SEM and SDO/EVE/ESP ch9 irradiances in 2012 could be related to higher sensitivity of the SEM to energetic particles than ESP or to errors related to using daily average reference spectra on days with high solar activity (see text for details).

Article Snippet: The instrument response function of the SEM instrument onboard SOHO was measured pre-launch at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Synchrotron Ultraviolet Radiation Facility (SURF III).

Techniques: Comparison, Activity Assay

Journal: Solar Physics

Article Title: Resolving Differences in Absolute Irradiance Measurements Between the SOHO/CELIAS/SEM and the SDO/EVE

doi: 10.1007/s11207-014-0519-5

Figure Lengend Snippet: (a) A comparison of the updated SOHO/SEM 26 – 34 nm irradiance time-series (black curve) with SOHO/SEM Version 3.1 (dotted curve), and SDO/EVE/MEGS Version 2 spectra integrated over the 26 – 34 nm band pass with high time-resolution during the X1.7, N33W85 solar flare of 27 January 2012. (b) The ratios of the updated SOHO/SEM irradiances over those of SOHO/SEM Version 3.1 vary by several percent over the course of the flare due to the rapid change of solar spectral distribution during the flare. (c) Ratios of the SOHO/SEM Version 3.1 irradiances over the integrated SDO/EVE/MEGS Version 2 spectra deviate significantly from their pre-flare values, while ratios of the daily average updated SOHO/SEM over the daily average integrated SDO/EVE/MEGS spectra (d) show little change.

Article Snippet: The instrument response function of the SEM instrument onboard SOHO was measured pre-launch at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Synchrotron Ultraviolet Radiation Facility (SURF III).

Techniques: Comparison

Journal: Solar Physics

Article Title: Resolving Differences in Absolute Irradiance Measurements Between the SOHO/CELIAS/SEM and the SDO/EVE

doi: 10.1007/s11207-014-0519-5

Figure Lengend Snippet: Correlations between EVE/MEGS spectra integrated over the 26 – 34 nm band and measurements from the SOHO/SEM 26 – 34 nm channels. SOHO/SEM Version 3.1 irradiances are shown in the left panel and those calculated using MEGS high time-cadence spectra and the revised response function are shown in the right panel. The correlation includes high time-cadence data over the 3-h period shown in Figure 6. Correlation coefficients are 0.98 for the SOHO/SEM Version 3.1 data and 0.99 for the updated SOHO/SEM data.

Article Snippet: The instrument response function of the SEM instrument onboard SOHO was measured pre-launch at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Synchrotron Ultraviolet Radiation Facility (SURF III).

Techniques:

Journal: Solar Physics

Article Title: Resolving Differences in Absolute Irradiance Measurements Between the SOHO/CELIAS/SEM and the SDO/EVE

doi: 10.1007/s11207-014-0519-5

Figure Lengend Snippet: (a) A comparison of the 7 – 50 nm SOHO/SEM irradiance time-series extracted from the zeroth-order measurements for the updated version (black curve) with that for Version 3.1 (dotted curve), and with daily average 7 – 50 nm MEGS integrated spectra. (b) Ratios of the SOHO/SEM Version 3.1 daily average irradiances over the daily average SDO/EVE/MEGS spectra integrated over 7 – 50 nm (dotted line) compared with similar ratios based on the updated SOHO/SEM (solid black line). Mean ratio levels are shown as dashed lines in panel (b).

Article Snippet: The instrument response function of the SEM instrument onboard SOHO was measured pre-launch at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Synchrotron Ultraviolet Radiation Facility (SURF III).

Techniques: Comparison

Journal: Solar Physics

Article Title: Resolving Differences in Absolute Irradiance Measurements Between the SOHO/CELIAS/SEM and the SDO/EVE

doi: 10.1007/s11207-014-0519-5

Figure Lengend Snippet: (a) A comparison of the 0.1 – 7 nm SOHO/SEM irradiance time-series extracted from the zeroth-order measurements for the updated version (black curve) with that for Version 3.1 (dotted curve), and with daily average 0.1 – 7 nm ESP measurements. (b) Ratios of the SOHO/SEM Version 3.1 daily average irradiances over the daily average SDO/EVE/ESP 0.1 – 7 nm measurements compared with similar ratios based on the updated SOHO/SEM. Mean ratio levels are shown as dashed lines in panel (b).

Article Snippet: The instrument response function of the SEM instrument onboard SOHO was measured pre-launch at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Synchrotron Ultraviolet Radiation Facility (SURF III).

Techniques: Comparison