Part, Chapter, Paragraph
1 II, 4. 2 | becomes stronger (if we compare Figure 4.2.5 with Figure
2 II, 5. 1. 1| historical patterns of smoking as compare to men (Parkin et al, 2005).
3 II, 5. 3. 2| Europe. A further aim is to compare practices in diagnosis and
4 II, 5. 4. 2| be conveniently used to compare own results against national
5 II, 5. 4. 6| appropriate health information to compare and support their national
6 II, 5. 5. 1| routine data cannot be used to compare mental health morbidity
7 II, 5. 5. 1| rural/urban living and thus compare levels of psychological
8 II, 5. 5. 3| should be carefully used to compare data and the state-of-art
9 II, 5. 5. 3| it will be possible to compare data between the EU countrie,
10 II, 5. 5. 3| project will contrast and compare current EU member states’
11 II, 5. 5. 3| strategy to analyse and compare MS data; prevalence and
12 II, 5. 8. 3| Research Database was used to compare incident COPD patients (
13 II, 5. 10. 2| Commission (EC) aimed to compare the prevalence of adult
14 II, 7. 5 | place in all Member States (compare Shields et al, 2006). Other
15 II, 8. 1. 3| poverty line. These figures compare with just under 11% of women
16 II, 8. 2. 1| disabilities, and may thus compare their health outcomes and
17 II, 8. 2. 1| population, and also to compare health outcomes, determinants
18 II, 9 | it is thus pertinent to compare the extremes of the age
19 II, 9. 1. 2| it is thus pertinent to compare the extremes of the age
20 II, 9. 1. 2| anomalies and/or exposures, compare data between regions and
21 II, 9. 3. 1| that it is difficult to compare the burden of the disease
22 II, 9. 3. 3| difficult to obtain and compare because surveys are not
23 II, 9. 3. 3| group it is difficult to compare it with data from other
24 II, 9. 3. 3| stable population allowed to compare sexual attitudes and behaviour
25 III, 10. 1 | identify causal factors, compare them and if possible quantify
26 III, 10. 2. 1| earlier data with which to compare, but empirically its use
27 III, 10. 3. 1| it has been difficult to compare the data between Member
28 III, 10. 3. 2| countries are difficult to compare. However, all organochlorine
29 III, 10. 4. 2| possibly a quantitative one) to compare/weigh the potential risk
30 III, 10. 4. 5| exposure and effect, and compare waste-related exposures
31 III, 10. 4. 5| exposure and effect, and compare waste–related exposures
32 III, 10. 5. 1| locally elected officials to compare their city directly to other
33 III, 10. 5. 2| definition of rural areas used to compare the data. A valid and consistent
34 IV, 11. 1. 3| and even more difficult to compare across countries.~ ~Other
35 IV, 11. 2. 2| to accurately measure and compare across countries. The data
36 IV, 11. 6. 4| aspects. Moreover, in order to compare the performances of different
37 IV, 11. 6. 4| 1998) ). Furthermore, to compare hospitals or populations,
38 IV, 13.Acr | to accurately measure and compare across countries. The data
