Part, Chapter, Paragraph
1 I, 2.Acr | Technology~ISCED~International Standard Classification of Education~
2 I, 2. 10. 1 | interpretation of this information in standard and easily accessible forms
3 II, 5. 1. 4 | must be informed about the standard of care. People affected
4 II, 5. 2. 2 | EUROSTAT European population as standard. The age range 35-74 years
5 II, 5. 2. 2 | are considered as a gold standard.~ ~
6 II, 5. 2. 2 | today are considered a gold standard. The definition of stroke
7 II, 5. 2. 3 | 14) - Age-standardized (standard European population) mortality
8 II, 5. 2. 3 | 5.2.5. Age-standardized (standard European Population) cerebrovascular
9 II, 5. 2. 3 | 5.2.3. Age-standardized (standard European population) mortality
10 II, 5. 2. 3 | 5.2.4. Age-standardized (standard European population) mortality
11 II, 5. 3. 2 | recommendations for the standard data set to be routinely
12 II, 5. 3. 5 | estimated rates (European standard) by sex in 2006 A) Men~Figure
13 II, 5. 3. 5 | estimated rates (European standard) by sex in 2006 B) Women~ ~
14 II, 5. 3. 5 | estimated rates (European standard) by sex A) Men~Figure 5.
15 II, 5. 3. 5 | estimated rates (European standard) by sex B) Women~ ~ ~Figure
16 II, 5. 3. 5 | mortality rates (European standard) by sex in 2006 A) Men~Figure
17 II, 5. 3. 5 | mortality rates (European standard) by sex in 2006 B) Women~ ~
18 II, 5. 3. 5 | mortality rates (European standard) by sex A) Men~Figure 5.
19 II, 5. 3. 5 | mortality rates (European standard) by sex B) Women~ ~Stomach
20 II, 5. 3. 5 | estimated rates (European standard) by sex in 2006 A) Men~Figure
21 II, 5. 3. 5 | estimated rates (European standard) by sex in 2006 B) Women~ ~
22 II, 5. 3. 5 | estimated rates (European standard) by sex A) Men~Figure 5.
23 II, 5. 3. 5 | estimated rates (European standard) by sex B) Women~ ~Figure
24 II, 5. 3. 5 | mortality rates (European standard) by sex in 2006 A) Men~Figure
25 II, 5. 3. 5 | mortality rates (European standard) by sex in 2006 B) Women~ ~
26 II, 5. 3. 5 | mortality rates (European standard) by sex A) Men~Figure 5.
27 II, 5. 3. 5 | mortality rates (European standard) by sex B) Women~ ~Colorectal
28 II, 5. 3. 5 | estimated rates (European standard) by sex in 2006 A) Men~Figure
29 II, 5. 3. 5 | estimated rates (European standard) by sex in 2006 B) Women~ ~
30 II, 5. 3. 5 | estimated rates (European standard) by sex A) Men~Figure 5.
31 II, 5. 3. 5 | estimated rates (European standard) by sex B) Women~ ~Figure
32 II, 5. 3. 5 | mortality rates (European standard) by sex in 2006 A) Men~Figure
33 II, 5. 3. 5 | mortality rates (European standard) by sex in 2006 B) Women~ ~
34 II, 5. 3. 5 | mortality rates (European standard) by sex A) Men~Figure 5.
35 II, 5. 3. 5 | mortality rates (European standard) by sex B) Women~ ~ ~Lung
36 II, 5. 3. 5 | estimated rates (European standard) by sex in 2006 A) Men~Figure
37 II, 5. 3. 5 | estimated rates (European standard) by sex in 2006 B) Women~ ~
38 II, 5. 3. 5 | estimated rates (European standard) by sex A) Men~Figure 5.
39 II, 5. 3. 5 | estimated rates (European standard) by sex B) Women~ ~Figure
40 II, 5. 3. 5 | mortality rates (European standard) by sex in 2006 A) Men~Figure
41 II, 5. 3. 5 | mortality rates (European standard) by sex in 2006 B) Women~ ~
42 II, 5. 3. 5 | mortality rates (European standard) by sex A) Men~Figure 5.
43 II, 5. 3. 5 | mortality rates (European standard) by sex B) Women~ ~Female
44 II, 5. 3. 5 | estimated rates (European standard) in 2006~Figure 5.3.18.
45 II, 5. 3. 5 | incidence rates (European standard)~Figure 5.3.19. Female breast
46 II, 5. 3. 5 | mortality rates (European standard) in 2006~Figure 5.3.20.
47 II, 5. 3. 5 | mortality rates (European standard)~ ~Cervical Cancer (ICD-9
48 II, 5. 3. 5 | estimated rates (European standard) in 2002~Figure 5.3.22.
49 II, 5. 3. 5 | estimated rates (European standard)~Figure 5.3.23. Uterus cancer
50 II, 5. 3. 5 | mortality rates (European standard) in the age class 20-44
51 II, 5. 3. 5 | mortality rates (European standard) in the age class 20-44~ ~
52 II, 5. 3. 5 | estimated rates (European standard) in 2006~Figure 5.3.26.
53 II, 5. 3. 5 | estimated rates (European standard)~Figure 5.3.27. Prostate
54 II, 5. 3. 5 | mortality rates (European standard) in 2006~Figure 5.3.28.
55 II, 5. 3. 5 | mortality rates (European standard)~ ~
56 II, 5. 3. 7 | research in Europe is of a high standard, but fragmentation and lack
57 II, 5. 4. 2 | Through this source and the standard classification of ATC and
58 II, 5. 4. 2 | population, adjusted for European Standard Population~12~National Registry~
59 II, 5. 4. 6 | care indicators the gold standard to achieve is 100%. Thus,
60 II, 5. 5. 3 | or DDD, and a comparative standard is emerging based on DDD
61 II, 5. 5. 3 | industry. The IMS-data document standard dosage units (SU) that are
62 II, 5. 5. 3 | treatments in routine care, the standard of guidelines, the degree
63 II, 5. 5. 3 | epilepsy still requires a standard definition. In a prospective
64 II, 5. 6. 3 | BMD level in women was 2.5 standard deviations or more below
65 II, 5. 6. 3 | a BMD value at least 2.5 standard deviations below the mean
66 II, 5. 6. 3 | value between 1 and 2.5 standard deviations below the mean
67 II, 5. 9. FB | infancy when compared to standard infant formulas.~ ~Secondary
68 II, 5. 9. 3 | prevalence of 1 or more standard error for at least one disorder,
69 II, 5. 9. 6 | GINA guidelines, the gold standard for the management of asthma.
70 II, 5. 10. 2 | tests) rather than gold standard methodology (i.e food challenge
71 II, 5. 10. 6 | studies using common and gold standard diagnostic methods are urgently
72 II, 5. 11. 3 | results of patch testing the standard series, 2004. Journal of
73 II, 5. 11. 3 | testing, a process whereby a standard battery of known allergens
74 II, 5. 12. 2 | method based on the world standard population (Doll and Smith,
75 II, 7. 2. 1 | version of ICD is used as standard in most Member States of
76 II, 7. 4 | indicators defining the European standard of injury indicators.~(See: htt ~ ~
77 II, 7. 4 | in order to calculate the standard injury indicators. Only
78 II, 8. 2. 1 | with those who received standard treatment alone. They suggest
79 II, 9 | conditions receive the highest standard of care (Macintosh et al,
80 II, 9. 1. 2 | comparability between countries. A standard set of minor or poorly defined
81 II, 9. 1. 2 | or hospitals do not use a standard coding system. It can be
82 II, 9. 1. 2 | conditions receive the highest standard of care (Macintosh et al,
83 II, 9. 2. 2 | are at variance with the standard (Robine et al 2004). Organisations
84 II, 9. 2. 2 | of the highest attainable standard of health and to facilities
85 II, 9. 2. 3 | there is remarkably little standard public health information
86 II, 9. 3. 1 | collection methods to a European standard are too daunting for States’
87 II, 9. 3. 1 | measurable common European standard.~ ~Likewise, attention must
88 II, 9. 4. 6 | developments~ ~The improvements in standard of living, the availability
89 II, 9. 5. 3 | people have a lower average standard of education than that of
90 II, 9. 5. 3 | person’s income. An adequate standard of living for an older person
91 III, 10. 2. 1 | prevalence is assessed from the standard questionnaire during a health
92 III, 10. 2. 1 | WHO/EURO. OECD also uses a standard health interview survey
93 III, 10. 2. 1 | standards called the Gothiatek Standard that sets limits for harmful
94 III, 10. 2. 1(14)| methodological issues’ and ‘DRD Standard Protocol, version 3.1’).~
95 III, 10. 2. 1 | risk factor definitions; a standard set of age groups for reporting;
96 III, 10. 2. 1 | groups for reporting; a standard reporting year; representativeness
97 III, 10. 2. 1 | final results to the WHO standard population. Data are available
98 III, 10. 2. 1 | WH (2000): Establishing a standard definition for child overweight
99 III, 10. 3. 4 | field assessment teams. Standard procedures for the collection
100 III, 10. 4. 1 | retaining the current PM10 standard and adding a new standard
101 III, 10. 4. 1 | standard and adding a new standard for PM2.5 – with the so-called
102 III, 10. 4. 2 | animals)~ ~Existing legal standard ~Exposure, possible~exceedance
103 III, 10. 4. 2 | system~ ~As of 1-1-2006 standard~for lead in drinking water~
104 III, 10. 4. 2 | consumption~well below the standard~(WHO: 1.6 ug/kg body~weight
105 III, 10. 4. 2 | was above~EU/WHO intake standard~ ~ ~Environmental~measures:
106 III, 10. 4. 2 | animals)~ ~Existing legal standard ~Exposure, possible~exceedance
107 III, 10. 4. 2 | preparation~ ~Exposure below the~standard; the average daily~intake
108 III, 10. 4. 2 | sauce~ ~Exposure below the~standard~ ~Monitoring~ ~WHO, 1996~
109 III, 10. 4. 2 | preparation~Exposure below the standard~Monitoring~WHO, 2001~Fumonisins~
110 III, 10. 4. 2 | preparation~Exposure below the standard~Monitoring~WHO, 2001~ ~Phycotoxins;
111 III, 10. 4. 2 | via drinking water,~below standard; sporadic~incidents where
112 III, 10. 4. 2 | calculated using one of four standard equations, depending on
113 III, 10. 4. 3 | international reference point for standard setting and drinking-water
114 III, 10. 4. 5 | introduces a higher health standard than the old directive which
115 III, 10. 4. 5 | in a timely fashion. New standard signs will be used on all
116 III, 10. 5. 1 | international definition or standard for “crowding”.~The potential
117 III, 10. 5. 2 | Correlation of age-adjusted standard mortality rate with urban
118 III, 10. 5. 3 | which are not covered by the standard survey so called ad hoc
119 IV, 11. 5. 4 | towards quality and safety. Standard procedures for procurement
120 IV, 12. 1 | was to improve the general standard of health by improving knowledge
121 IV, 12. 2 | research in Europe is of a high standard, but fragmentation and lack
122 IV, 12. 10 | development of an appropriate standard of living for children and
123 IV, 12. 10 | will provide a single standard system for admission to,
124 IV, 12. 10 | Proportion with a low economic standard among families with children,
125 IV, 12. 10 | people with a low economic standard~Domain of objective 2~ ~
