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
