Part, Chapter, Paragraph
1 -, 1 | associated with making such comparisons. For instance, definitions
2 -, 1 | social factors. Cross-country comparisons should, therefore, always
3 -, 1 | variations of measurement, if comparisons are to be strengthened.~ ~
4 I, 2. 4 | at constant prices allows comparisons of the dynamics of economic
5 II, 4. 3 | countries: calculation and comparisons. Genus LVII(2): 89-101.~ ~
6 II, 5. 2. 3| trends was not possible and comparisons among countries are not
7 II, 5. 2. 7| trends in Stroke event rates? Comparisons of 15 populations in 9 countries
8 II, 5. 3. 7| cancer mortality in regional comparisons for cervical cancer (with
9 II, 5. 4. 2| as fit for international comparisons in diabetes.~Proliferative
10 II, 5. 4. 2| indicators fit for international comparisons.~The annual incidence of
11 II, 5. 5. 3| Available data on inter-country comparisons of hospital in-patient admission
12 II, 5. 5. 3| methodologies. Point prevalence comparisons made within and across surveys
13 II, 5. 5. 3| is not possible to make comparisons. A study published in 2004 (
14 II, 5. 5. 3| the WPSI vocational scale: comparisons with other correlates of
15 II, 5. 7. 2| renal registries hampered comparisons across Member States and
16 II, 5. 7. 2| Registry facilitated the comparisons as at least a large part
17 II, 5. 8. 3| Although, as already discussed, comparisons between countries may not
18 II, 5. 9. 1| asthma and rhinitis althought comparisons are difficult due to the
19 II, 5. 9. 4| skin prick tests. However, comparisons between studies and between
20 II, 5. 10. 2| to allow between-country comparisons across Europe has been made
21 II, 5. 10. 7| and intolerances (2001): Comparisons arising from the European
22 II, 5. 11. 3| 1978; Herd et al, 1994).~Comparisons between different studies
23 II, 5. 14. 2| and systems is encouraged.~Comparisons of the global frequency
24 II, 5. 14. 2| studies markedly limits comparisons between countries and regions.
25 II, 5. 14. 5| information to make international comparisons and support their national
26 II, 6. 3. 3| infection is not notifiable. Comparisons between reporting countries
27 II, 6. 3. 3| countries making direct comparisons inappropriate. The highest
28 II, 6. 3. 6| many countries makes direct comparisons between them very difficult.
29 II, 6. 3. 6| surveillance systems make comparisons between countries very difficult.
30 II, 6. 3. 6| age groups under 15 years. Comparisons between reporting countries
31 II, 8. 2. 1| not available to permit comparisons of people in this group
32 II, 8. 2. 1| essential in order to permit comparisons between persons who have
33 II, 9. 1. 1| common criteria distorts comparisons between countries.~Neonatal
34 II, 9. 1. 1| days after live birth).~Comparisons of the neonatal mortality
35 II, 9. 1. 1| Sources~ ~International comparisons of data relating to pregnancy
36 II, 9. 1. 1| artifacts in international comparisons of infant mortality. Paediatr
37 II, 9. 1. 2| presented in section 9.1.2.3. Comparisons of the proportion of cases
38 II, 9. 3. 1| ethnic groups. Cross-cultural comparisons demonstrate that reported
39 II, 9. 3. 2| enhances our understanding and comparisons of health in the perinatal
40 II, 9. 3. 2| cannot be transposed for comparisons between Member States because
41 II, 9. 3. 2| artifacts in international comparisons of infant mortality. Paediatr
42 II, 9. 3. 3| lifestyle surveys and reported comparisons from Denmark (Kangas et
43 II, 9. 3. 3| purposes, and cross-national comparisons were not published. In the
44 II, 9. 3. 3| partners. International comparisons show that Irish people tend
45 II, 9. 3. 3| and HIV/AIDS in Europe: comparisons of national surveys. (Edited
46 II, 9. 3. 3| and HIV/AIDS in Europe: Comparisons of National Surveys. UCL
47 II, 9. 4. 3| aged persons is sporadic. Comparisons of the notification rate
48 III, 10. 2. 1| 2006d) aims at allowing comparisons in developing countries
49 III, 10. 2. 1| to provide cross-country comparisons, national data sets are
50 III, 10. 2. 1| obese individuals.~ ~Making comparisons between countries was difficult,
51 III, 10. 2. 1| difficulties in attempting earlier comparisons. As for other diseases related
52 III, 10. 2. 1| surveys can be used for comparisons of dietary intake data between
53 III, 10. 2. 1| To enable international comparisons of household survey data
54 III, 10. 2. 1| products.~ ~Table 10.2.1.7.6. Comparisons between European Hearth
55 III, 10. 2. 1| also to allow inter-country comparisons. The White Paper urges “
56 III, 10. 3. 1| comparability. International comparisons of the noise levels in different
57 III, 10. 3. 1| facilitated.~ ~International comparisons of annoyance rates are hampered
58 III, 10. 3. 4| ambiguity of terminology make comparisons and use of the different
59 III, 10. 5. 2| 2007): Urban–Rural Health Comparisons: Key results of the 2002/
60 IV, 11. 1. 1| associated with making such comparisons. For instance, definitions
61 IV, 11. 1. 1| social factors. Cross-country comparisons should, therefore, always
62 IV, 11. 3. 2| control, international price comparisons and reference pricing. Price
63 IV, 11. 3. 2| prices, price-caps, and price comparisons with other countries; the
64 IV, 11. 3. 2| government. International price comparisons to determine prices are
65 IV, 11. 6. 1| expenditure and drawing comparisons across countries, owing
66 IV, 11. 6. 2| generalizations and cross-country comparisons inappropriate.~ ~Despite
67 IV, 11. 6. 3| Furthermore, international comparisons of progressiveness in healthcare
68 IV, 11. 6. 3| catastrophic payments. Note that comparisons between the Wagstaff et
69 IV, 11. 6. 5| E (1999): "International comparisons of health care expenditures:
70 IV, 13. 7. 3| international cooperation, making comparisons between member states as
