Part, Chapter, Paragraph
1 II, 5. 2. 6| with correct cost-benefit assessments.~It is important to remember
2 II, 5. 5. 3| valuable tool for multiple assessments of MS epidemiological indices
3 II, 5. 5. 3| partly related to repeated assessments over time and increased
4 II, 5. 5. 3| 2.6 in 1974–88. Multiple assessments carried out in Västerbotten
5 II, 5. 5. 3| multiple large population-based assessments conducted in northern, eastern
6 II, 5. 5. 3| epidemiological methods, multiple assessments and increased survival.
7 II, 5. 5. 3| registry systems and repeated assessments over time.~Nevertheless,
8 II, 5. 5. 3| survey methodology, and where assessments have been repeatedly conducted
9 II, 5. 5. 3| incidence rates where multiple assessments have been carried out point
10 II, 5. 5. 3| access to palliative care assessments and services.~· National
11 II, 5. 5. 3| parameters and health technology assessments regarding the management
12 II, 5. 7. 7| disease-patient and caregiver assessments. Nephrol Dial Transplant
13 II, 9. 3. 1| gender and health impact assessments of all research, planning
14 III, 10. 2. 1| for preliminary exposure assessments by the EFSA Scientific Panels
15 III, 10. 3. 1| differences in methodologies as assessments methods and indicators it
16 III, 10. 3. 1| equipment require risk assessments to be made in relation to
17 III, 10. 3. 1| country. The use of harmonised assessments methods are foreseen in
18 III, 10. 3. 1| analyses and integrated assessments of a higher quality. By
19 III, 10. 3. 1| quality. By doing this, assessments of combined environmental
20 III, 10. 3. 2| Environment and health”. These assessments are based on a wide array
21 III, 10. 3. 2| sources listed below. EEA assessments are peer reviewed and quality
22 III, 10. 3. 4| Protection conducted immediate assessments and urgent search and rescue
23 III, 10. 4. 1| report_2005_10/en~ ~EEA assessments are peer reviewed and quality
24 III, 10. 4. 1| on scientific knowledge, assessments and case studies in Europe.~ ~
25 III, 10. 4. 1| CAFÉ) process and several assessments made by WHO are also important
26 III, 10. 4. 2| safety. EFSA’s evidence-based assessments of risk – carried out in
27 III, 10. 4. 2| permit the conduct of risk assessments for chemical and biological
28 III, 10. 4. 2| studies for microbial risk assessments. The type of studies for
29 III, 10. 4. 2| use the data for detailed assessments. It is, therefore, necessary
30 III, 10. 4. 2| disadvantages. Cumulative risk assessments have been conducted, mainly
31 III, 10. 4. 2| needs. Differences in risk assessments and extrapolation from effects
32 III, 10. 4. 2| out appropriate exposure assessments and evaluate the risks involved
33 III, 10. 4. 2| develop environmental risk assessments, the FOCUS (FOrum for the
34 III, 10. 4. 2| guidance on conducting risk assessments on pesticides has historically
35 III, 10. 4. 2| available for health benefit assessments of foods, food ingredients
36 III, 10. 4. 2| explains the implications of assessments from its scientific panels
37 III, 10. 4. 5| Environment data and assessments about contaminated sites
38 III, 10. 4. 5| characterize all risks, such assessments should be inspired by a
39 III, 10. 5. 1| Therefore, generalized assessments can only summarize the more
40 IV, 11. 1. 3| States to more comprehensive assessments also in Europe (e.g. Rutstein
41 IV, 11. 1. 5| the EU (Anderson, 2004), assessments can be divided broadly into
42 IV, 11. 4 | commissioning independent assessments of the evidence, accompanied
43 IV, 11. 4 | rather than duplicating assessments across the Member States”.
44 IV, 11. 6. 4| engaged in the independent assessments.~ ~Most review bodies can
45 IV, 11. 6. 4| e.g. France) employ the assessments primarily to inform budgetary
46 IV, 11. 6. 5| reporting health technology assessments. Int J Technol Assess Health
47 IV, 12. 4 | tooth whitening agents, the assessments of possible risks from nanotechnologies;
48 IV, 12. 7 | development of the policy assessments. The next steps will be
