Part, Chapter, Paragraph
1 I, 2. 8 | high greenhouse emissions versus coal~Usually small and containable
2 I, 2. 10. 4| European Customs, a 384% growth versus 2005(14). It is likely that
3 II, 5. 1. 2| to the concept of illness versus disease, the latter being
4 II, 5. 5. 3| the definition of recovery versus persistence of the disease
5 II, 5. 5. 3| incidence of schizophrenia: data versus dogma. Schiz Bull 32: 195-
6 II, 5. 5. 3| Scottish offshore islands versus southern England and Wales;
7 II, 5. 5. 3| increased proportions of RR- versus PP-MS and among women versus
8 II, 5. 5. 3| versus PP-MS and among women versus men. A fluctuating incidence
9 II, 5. 7. 3| relative stability of CKD versus a marked increase in ESRD
10 II, 9. 1. 1| Substandard care in immigrant versus indigenous maternal deaths
11 II, 9. 3. 2| Substandard care in immigrant versus indigenous maternal deaths
12 III, 10. 2. 1| 34% of 13-year-old boys versus 24% of girls, and 28% of
13 III, 10. 2. 1| 28% of 15-year-old boys versus 31% of girls, were overweight.
14 III, 10. 5. 2| settlement categories (urban versus rural), but also defined
15 III, 10. 5. 2| two categories of urban versus rural settlements structures.~ ~
16 III, 10. 5. 2| EU (Spain: 22% in urban versus 33% in rural areas; Portugal:
17 III, 10. 5. 2| rural areas; Portugal: 21% versus 33%; Greece: 22% versus
18 III, 10. 5. 2| versus 33%; Greece: 22% versus 29%; but also in France:
19 III, 10. 5. 2| but also in France: 21% versus 30%). There is however a
20 III, 10. 5. 2| difference also in Sweden (21% versus 29%) and a rather small
21 III, 10. 5. 2| difference for Italy (27,5% versus 30%). However, in Hungary,
22 III, 10. 5. 2| deaths per 1.000 populations versus 11.57 in urban settings),
23 III, 10. 5. 2| settings (Male: 909 in rural versus 597 in urban places; Female:
24 III, 10. 5. 2| places; Female: 667 in rural versus 322 in urban places). Four-week
25 III, 10. 5. 2| the terminology of urban versus rural settings remains fuzzy,
26 IV, 11. 2. 1| after is minimal (11.4. versus 7.9), partly owing to the
27 IV, 11. 5. 4| associated with the organ versus the consequences of not
28 IV, 11. 6. 2| on the level of indirect versus direct, local versus national
29 IV, 11. 6. 2| indirect versus direct, local versus national and earmarked versus
30 IV, 11. 6. 2| versus national and earmarked versus general taxation. Overall,
31 IV, 11. 6. 3| things (proportionality versus progressiveness).~ ~
32 IV, 11. 6. 5| Benson JM (2001): "The public versus the World Health Organization
33 IV, 13. 2. 2| developed world (non-OECD versus OECD)~ ~Furthermore, the
