Part,  Chapter, Paragraph

 1    I,     2.  5    |      informed choices. Work on the methodology for comparative analysis
 2   II,     5.  1.  1|           Differences exist in the methodology adopted for data collection (
 3   II,     5.  2.  2|      through the same standardized methodology, therefore they are comparable
 4   II,     5.  2.  2|      through the same standardized methodology, therefore they are comparable
 5   II,     5.  2.  2| differences among countries in the methodology adopted for data collection (
 6   II,     5.  2.  3|      through the same standardized methodology within the WHO MONICA Project.
 7   II,     5.  2.  4|     differences in data collection methodology (self reported or measured),
 8   II,     5.  5.  1|           population using a sound methodology and repeated at regular
 9   II,     5.  5.  2|          be classified by research methodology, disease type, age range,
10   II,     5.  5.  3|          prevalence over time. The methodology to measure prevalence and
11   II,     5.  5.  3|           ascertainment and survey methodology in the same time frame.
12   II,     5.  5.  3|          better accuracy in survey methodology, and where assessments have
13   II,     5.  5.  3|           ascertainment and survey methodology in time.~When multiple regression
14   II,     5.  5.  3|      consequence of differences in methodology, population samples, survey
15   II,     5.  5.  3|            studies, differences in methodology have a considerable influence
16   II,     5.  5.  3|      results due to differences in methodology.~Our estimates show the
17   II,     5.  5.  3|        Italy: comparison of tracer methodology and clinical ascertainment
18   II,     5.  7.  2|    analysed using exactly the same methodology.~ ~The ERA-EDTA Registry (
19   II,     5. 10.  2|          rather than gold standard methodology (i.e food challenge studies
20   II,     5. 10.  7|       Review of the development of methodology for evaluating the human
21   II,     5. 11.  7|           in Leicester: a study of methodology and examination of possible
22   II,     5. 14.  2|             weaknesses in terms of methodology, quality control, and presentation
23   II,     6.  3.  2|    resistance patterns is that the methodology for sensitivity testing
24   II,     7.  2    |         e.g. – and with a specific methodology. This may lead to problems
25   II,     7.  2.  4|         gathered on the basis of a methodology developed in 1990. The data
26   II,     7.  2.  4|             EU 15) and Norway. The methodology is being implemented in
27   II,     7.  5    |           the outlines of a common methodology for injury information based
28   II,     9.  3.  1|           to enhancing statistical methodology and classifications and
29   II,     9.  3.  2|            to include and a common methodology for identifying cases. The
30   II,     9.  5.  4|            include gender proofing methodology and classifications;~· The
31   II,     9.  5.  4|          to be paid to statistical methodology and classifications. It
32  III,    10.  2.  1|         well described sources and methodology.~ ~The estimated data for
33  III,    10.  2.  1|          probably more a matter of methodology than of real differences
34  III,    10.  2.  1|          regarding data collection methodology and age range of the subjects.
35  III,    10.  4.  1|         and Environment Integrated Methodology and Toolbox~INTARESE~Integrated
36  III,    10.  4.  1|          billion, depending on the methodology used to assess the value
37  III,    10.  4.  2|            EU to harmonise testing methodology for contaminants. Regulation
38  III,    10.  4.  2|       reasons related to sampling, methodology and uneven distribution
39  III,    10.  4.  2|    harmonisation of the analytical methodology.~· Listeriosis is an important
40  III,    10.  4.  2|           and on http ~ ~An ad hoc methodology to assess the risk of carcinogenic
41  III,    10.  4.  2|          further work to develop a methodology to take into account the
42  III,    10.  4.  2|        safety assessment using the methodology further developed in the
43  III,    10.  4.  5|        robust, although analytical methodology has not been fully developed
44  III,    10.  6.  1|           intervals using a common methodology in order to monitor how
45  III,    10.  6.  1|         and Retirement in EuropeMethodology. Mannheim: Mannheim Research
46   IV,    11.  1.  6|            Europe. A review of the methodology used to develop DRG systems
47   IV,    11.  2.  2|           Clinical Excellence. The methodology used for making decisions
48   IV,    11.  5.  5|    transplantation, the evaluation methodology and fundamental research.~-
49   IV,    11.  5.  5|     protocols, Registry, implement methodology, deliver information, support
50   IV,    12.  5    |         historical and future data methodology and accuracy and harmonization
51   IV,    12.  7    |         care has been developing a methodology for estimating the impact
52   IV,    13.Acr    |           Clinical Excellence. The methodology used for making decisions