Part,  Chapter, Paragraph

 1    I,     2.  4        |         member States and allows a comparison of the dynamics of economy
 2    I,     2.  5        |       safety at increased risk, in comparison with other workers in similar
 3   II,     4.  1        |         more complex than a simple comparison between Western and eastern
 4   II,     4.  1        |  assessment of the EU situation in comparison to that of the United States
 5   II,     4.  1        |         does not yet permit direct comparison with these two countries,
 6   II,     5.  2.  3    |         same person. To facilitate comparison at least within the same
 7   II,     5.  2.  3    |      higher than it is in Italy. A comparison of changes in attack and
 8   II,     5.  2.  4    |        provide trends overview and comparison among high risk countries.
 9   II,     5.  3.  2    |         are the best tools for the comparison of cancer burden in EU.~ ~
10   II,     5.  3.  2    |         mosesII_survey/~ ~A global comparison regarding patient access
11   II,     5.  3.  5    |       Europe (Ferlay et al, 2007). Comparison of prostate cancer rates
12   II,     5.  3.  7    |          report entitled “A global comparison regarding patient access
13   II,     5.  4.  6    |  comparable or should allow future comparison between countries or regions);
14   II,     5.  5.Int(18)|  Prevalence of eating disorders: a comparison of Western and non-Western
15   II,     5.  5.  1    |           Thus, on European level, comparison of relative risks may be
16   II,     5.  5.  1    |          may be more reliable than comparison of absolute prevalence rates.
17   II,     5.  5.  3    |       Union-wide data analysis and comparison of data is currently not
18   II,     5.  5.  3    |     schizophrenia.~ ~Inter-country comparison data on mortality for selected
19   II,     5.  5.  3    |          inhabitants would allow a comparison between European countries.
20   II,     5.  5.  3    |             Palmer et al, 2005), a comparison of suicide rates from the
21   II,     5.  5.  3    |           5.5.3.2.2. Inter-country comparison of hospital age standardized
22   II,     5.  5.  3    |           international survey and comparison Br J Psychiatry 187: 248-
23   II,     5.  5.  3    |      Malchow CP, Dilling H (2002): Comparison of psychiatric ICD-10 Diagnosis
24   II,     5.  5.  3    |            studies has made direct comparison of risk factors very difficult.
25   II,     5.  5.  3    |              and intangible costs (comparison of patientsHRQoL to that
26   II,     5.  5.  3    |            designs that preclude a comparison of results.. The primary
27   II,     5.  5.  3    |      secondary progression, direct comparison of immunomodulatory treatments
28   II,     5.  5.  3    |   Diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: comparison of the Poser criteria and
29   II,     5.  5.  3    |            a regional and temporal comparison during 30 years. Acta Neurol
30   II,     5.  5.  3    |        would allow a more accurate comparison of national and international
31   II,     5.  5.  3    |     disease in Northwestern Italy: comparison of tracer methodology and
32   II,     5.  6.  2    |         should be pointed out that comparison of data obtained in different
33   II,     5.  6.  6    |        2000) Back pain in Britain: comparison of two prevalence surveys
34   II,     5.  6.  6    | osteoarthritis: Zoetermeer survey. Comparison of radiological osteoarthritis
35   II,     5.  6.  6    |           Europe: its impact and a comparison of population and medical
36   II,     5.  7.  2    |         Registry for international comparison. Other Member States, especially
37   II,     5.  7.  3    |      patients with CKD in 1978. By comparison, 16 cases of ESRD had developed
38   II,     5.  7.  7    |          al (2006a): International comparison of the relationship of chronic
39   II,     5.  7.  7    |       Hogan ML, Singh AK (2003): A comparison of prediction equations
40   II,     5.  8.  4    |           duration of smoking.~ ~A comparison of results on the correlation
41   II,     5.  8.  6    |          yet there has been little comparison of health care utilization
42   II,     5.  8.  7    |            2007): COPD and Asthma: comparison of the utilization of hospital
43   II,     5.  9.  6    |           conditions and allow the comparison of HRQoL of patients affected
44   II,     5.  9.  7    |            and atopic diseases : I.Comparison of study design - a GA2LEN
45   II,     5.  9.  7    |            2007): COPD and Asthma: comparison of the utilization of hospital
46   II,     5. 11.  7    |      Netherlands: an international comparison. Br J Dermatol 2002;147:
47   II,     7.  2.  9    |   existence of several sources the comparison and summarisation of injury
48   II,     7.  3.  1    |          sector, EU27 allows for a comparison of major injury outcomes
49   II,     8.  2.  3    |          hearing impairment, thus, comparison among studies is difficult.
50   II,     9.  1.  2    |          000 births respectively). Comparison between countries is complicated
51   II,     9.  3.  1    |  Prevalence of eating disorders: a comparison of Western and non-Western
52   II,     9.  3.  3    |        only limited cross-national comparison. Questions included in the
53   II,     9.  3.  3    |   behaviour and health outcomes in comparison to age or education (Del
54   II,     9.  3.  3    |             Østergaard L (2004): A comparison of sexual behaviour and
55   II,     9.  5.  3    |             about Euro 30 000). In comparison, treatment for the perpetrator
56  III,    10.  2.  1    |          in smoking: international comparison. BMJ, 2000; 320(7242): 1102-
57  III,    10.  2.  1    |         concentration level (BAC). Comparison of blood alcohol concentrations (
58  III,    10.  2.  1    |       tobacco and local control. A comparison of several community-based
59  III,    10.  2.  1    |          in 11 European Countries: Comparison of Population Based Studies.
60  III,    10.  2.  1    |          Almeidia et al, 2003). In comparison with studies dating from
61  III,    10.  2.  1    |     Institute, 2006) allows direct comparison of levels of physical activity
62  III,    10.  2.  1    |           from the 2003 survey but comparison of one single question across
63  III,    10.  3.  1    |        sources, only an indicative comparison between countries and regions
64  III,    10.  4.  2    |            benefit (a risk-benefit comparison).~ ~The decision to initiate
65  III,    10.  5.  1    |           for (a) benchmarking and comparison of urban conditions and (
66  III,    10.  5.  1    |           2004): Cost and efficacy comparison of integrated pest management
67  III,    10.  5.  2    |           countries~ ~Thereby, any comparison of the health status of
68  III,    10.  5.  2    |        emerge when it comes to the comparison of dataespecially disease
69  III,    10.  5.  2    |           Paykel et al., 2000). In comparison, isolation is more typical
70  III,    10.  5.  3    |  occupational diseases. An updated comparison of compensation schemes
71  III,    10.  5.  3    |            2007): An International Comparison of Occupational Disease
72   IV,    11.  5.  4    |          an organ donation card.~ ~Comparison between countries shows
73   IV,    11.  6.  5    |           evaluation and indicator comparison in health care." International
74   IV,    11.  6.  5    |           health care resources: a comparison of OECD countries." Health
75   IV,    11.  6.  5    |           related groups (DRGs): A comparison of nine European countries."
76   IV,    11.  6.  5    |         taxation: an international comparison." Empirical Economics 19:
77   IV,    12.  5        |           the series which hampers comparison over time. Indeed the ECHP
78   IV,    12. 10        |       safety~ ~o Law 3542/2007 (in comparison with the previous code 2696/
79   IV,    13.  2.  3    |  conditions. Table 13.7 presents a comparison of the health loss (in DALYs)
80   IV,    13.  2.  3    |          factors in perspective. A comparison is also carried out with
81   IV,    13.  2.  3    |          significant diseases. The comparison shows that the overall health
82   IV,    13.  2.  4    |          considered that this data comparison refers to the general population