Part,  Chapter, Paragraph

 1   II,     4.  1    |          the possibility to compute comparable life tables by socio-economic
 2   II,     5.  2.  2|     methodology, therefore they are comparable and still today are considered
 3   II,     5.  2.  2|     methodology, therefore they are comparable and still today are considered
 4   II,     5.  2.  3|              The only available and comparable data on morbidity of acute
 5   II,     5.  2.  3|         management of risk factors.~Comparable data on morbidity are more
 6   II,     5.  2.  3|              The only available and comparable data, although seldom representative
 7   II,     5.  2.  7|            are morbidity indicators comparable?: Results from the EUROCISS
 8   II,     5.  3.  2|           provide standardized data comparable across Europe;~· cancer
 9   II,     5.  3.  2|         should be recognised a role comparable to that of National Institutes
10   II,     5.  4.  2|         collecting standardized and comparable data across countries remains
11   II,     5.  4.  2|            5%) that makes data less comparable and applicable at EU level.~
12   II,     5.  4.  3|          description and analysis~ ~Comparable data on the human and economic
13   II,     5.  4.  6|          reliable, reproducible and comparable indicators within the EU
14   II,     5.  4.  6|       comparability (they should be comparable or should allow future comparison
15   II,     5.  5.  1|        quality of life to an extent comparable to the reduction caused
16   II,     5.  5.  1|          mental health~Reliable and comparable indicators to monitor mental
17   II,     5.  5.  1|            health. High quality and comparable data need to be collected
18   II,     5.  5.  2|          inferences using data from comparable contexts and express opinions
19   II,     5.  5.  3|       should, moreover, implement a comparable health monitoring system
20   II,     5.  5.  3|         enhance research and gather comparable data on incidence and prevalence
21   II,     5.  5.  3|              There are no available comparable data on morbidity in ASD
22   II,     5.  5.  3|          RESt-1 Group, 2000) showed comparable levels of education in patients
23   II,     5.  5.  3|   prevalence in Northern Ireland is comparable with that in Scotland, probably
24   II,     5.  5.  3|        similar to that in the UK at comparable latitudes.~The MS prevalence
25   II,     5.  5.  3|         Switzerland and Austria, in comparable time periods. The geographical
26   II,     5.  6.  3|            figures are not directly comparable because they are not age
27   II,     5.  6.  3|            of 85, whilst in men the comparable figures are 2.4% and 20%,
28   II,     5.  7.  3|             in the populations were comparable, but US white patients were
29   II,     5.  7.  5|       performance indicators in RRT comparable at international level.~ ~
30   II,     5.  7.  6|             EU wide availability of comparable data on clinical performance
31   II,     5.  8.  3|       Incidence~ ~There are limited comparable data on the incidence of
32   II,     5. 10.  3|       between the ECRHS cohorts was comparable to that observed for other
33   II,     5. 12.  4|       followed after a few years by comparable changes in cirrhosis mortality.
34   II,     7.  2.  2|            not always be completely comparable. Data on hospital discharges
35   II,     7.  2.  5|             provide internationally comparable up to date statistics and
36   II,     7.  2.  6|        narrative is provided and is comparable across all injury sectors.~ ~
37   II,     7.  4    |        calculated in a reliable and comparable manner in most Member States
38   II,     7.  4    |            available and reasonably comparable indicators (mostly based
39   II,     7.  5    |       instruments to obtain EU-wide comparable information and to monitor
40   II,     7.  5    |      calculation of internationally comparable national indicators, e.g.
41   II,     8.  1.  2|            provide the relevant and comparable statistical data needed
42   II,     8.  1.  2|           disabilities. In general, comparable data on disability and on
43   II,     8.  1.  2|      instruments that could provide comparable data for topics related
44   II,     8.  2.  1|             to identify a source of comparable data based on population
45   II,     8.  2.  1|        health indicators permitting comparable health information across
46   II,     8.  2.  1|     intellectual disability~Lack of comparable health information about
47   II,     8.  2.  1|             Further, the absence of comparable, systematically gathered,
48   II,     8.  2.  1|    strategies to gather systematic, comparable health information about
49   II,     8.  2.  3|         elaborated by WHO to obtain comparable estimates of hearing loss.
50   II,     8.  2.  3|         were interpolated to obtain comparable estimates according to the
51   II,     9.  2.  2|      national level, but may not be comparable between countries.~ ~General
52   II,     9.  2.  2|           indicators, which produce comparable data. Even so, it has proven
53   II,     9.  2.  3|        systems available to provide comparable Europe-wide data. Studies
54   II,     9.  2.  3|           even crude measure of the comparable incidence across Europe -
55   II,     9.  2.  3|         turn means that Europe-wide comparable data are not available.
56   II,     9.  3.  1|            indicators which produce comparable data. Even so, it has proven
57   II,     9.  3.  1|             usually limited and not comparable and so fail to reflect the
58   II,     9.  4.  2|        group.~ ~There are no easily comparable data on morbidity of older
59   II,     9.  5.  2|    Euro-REVES was set up to provide comparable health indicators that would
60   II,     9.  5.  4|             collection that provide comparable information between Member
61   II,     9.  5.  4|            indicators which produce comparable data (De Smedt, 2004). In
62   II,     9.  5.  4|             of timely, reliable and comparable data disaggregated per sex (
63  III,    10.  2.  1|        these treatments tends to be comparable regardless of intensity,
64  III,    10.  2.  1|     International publications from comparable industrialised campaigns
65  III,    10.  2.  1|         national data sets are made comparable by adjusting for the following
66  III,    10.  2.  1|              As of now, no directly comparable data to the 2006 publication (
67  III,    10.  2.  1|            1999) so results are not comparable across different surveys
68  III,    10.  2.  1|         survey years when they were comparable regarding data collection
69  III,    10.  2.  1|         food composition tables are comparable.~There are currently no
70  III,    10.  2.  1|  availability per person per day of comparable food items or groups among
71  III,    10.  2.  1|           categories in Europe in a comparable way;~· to indicate how to
72  III,    10.  2.  1|      existing food consumption data comparable; and~· to define a (minimum)
73  III,    10.  2.  1|            the few studies in which comparable individual dietary intake
74  III,    10.  2.  1|         level to ensure consistent, comparable data on overall progress
75  III,    10.  3.  2|           of 2.49 ng/g fat which is comparable to the levels reported from
76  III,    10.  3.  2|           analysis methods were not comparable. Concentrations in human
77  III,    10.  4.  1| approximately nine months, which is comparable to the impacts of traffic
78  III,    10.  4.  1|       methods in order to arrive to comparable measurements throughout
79  III,    10.  4.  2|             to obtain data that are comparable between Member States, it
80  III,    10.  4.  5|    hazardous waste are not entirely comparable.~ ~Figure 10.4.5.2.3. Hazardous
81  III,    10.  5.  2|           urban” and “rural” is not comparable. Therefore, it is difficult
82  III,    10.  5.  3|          was aimed at a harmonised, comparable and reliable data set and
83   IV,    11.  1.  5|     reported across countries using comparable data. A set of comparable
84   IV,    11.  1.  5|           comparable data. A set of comparable data across 23 countries
85   IV,    12.  1    |   monitoring~The aim was to produce comparable information on health and
86   IV,    12.  2    |        these treatments tends to be comparable regardless of intensity,
87   IV,    12.  4    |             objective, reliable and comparable information at European
88   IV,    12.  5    |        mechanisms for collection of comparable data and information, with
89   IV,    12.  5    |        Commission aims at producing comparable information on health and
90   IV,    13.  2.  1|             mortality more directly comparable.~ ~DALYs try to combine
91   IV,    13.  2.  3|            contamination of food is comparable to that due to a number
92   IV,    13.  7.  5|            can see the need to have comparable information on health and
93   IV,    13.  8    |       States of the European Union.~Comparable data at EU level and in