Part,  Chapter, Paragraph

 1    -,     1        |            and comments on specific subjects. On the other hand, integrations
 2   II,     5.  1.  1|           contact dermatitis, where subjects develop a delayed type of
 3   II,     5.  2.  5|             al, 2008). In high risk subjects, if these interventions
 4   II,     5.  2.  6|          160 mg/dL in very low risk subjects) in the large majority of
 5   II,     5.  2.  6|         risk, especially in elderly subjects (Weijenberg MP et al, 1996).
 6   II,     5.  3.  1|             It is the proportion of subjects living in the population
 7   II,     5.  3.  2|            mortality among screened subjects and the general population.~ ~·
 8   II,     5.  3.  7|            lung cancer in high-risk subjects may lead to important health
 9   II,     5.  4.  2|             by extracting a list of subjects from databases that do not
10   II,     5.  4.  2|            diabetes~ ~Prevalence of subjects with impaired glucose tolerance
11   II,     5.  4.  2| complications~ ~Percent of diabetic subjects and a HbA1c tested in last
12   II,     5.  4.  2|       months~16~Percent of diabetic subjects and a HbA1c tested, with
13   II,     5.  4.  2|              14~Percent of diabetic subjects with a lipid profile in
14   II,     5.  4.  2|       months~14~Percent of diabetic subjects tested in the last 12 months
15   II,     5.  4.  2|            l~14~Percent of diabetic subjects tested in the last 12 months
16   II,     5.  4.  2|              13~Percent of diabetic subjects tested in the last 12 months
17   II,     5.  4.  2|              11~Percent of diabetic subjects tested in the last 12 months
18   II,     5.  4.  2|              12~Percent of diabetic subjects tested for microalbuminuria
19   II,     5.  4.  2|       months~12~Percent of diabetic subjects with a tested microalbuminuria
20   II,     5.  4.  2|        level~11~Percent of diabetic subjects with a tested blood pressure
21   II,     5.  4.  2|           14~Percent of of diabetic subjects with a tested blood pressure
22   II,     5.  4.  2|           90~10~Percent of diabetic subjects who are smoking~14~Percent
23   II,     5.  4.  2|      smoking~14~Percent of diabetic subjects and a BMI 25 kg/m2 , 30
24   II,     5.  4.  2| complications~ ~Percent of diabetic subjects with fundus inspection in
25   II,     5.  4.  2|       months~11~Percent of diabetic subjects tested in the last 12 months,
26   II,     5.  4.  2|        months~6~Percent of diabetic subjects who received laser treatment<
27   II,     5.  4.  2|   retinopathy~1~Percent of diabetic subjects tested serum creatinine
28   II,     5.  4.  2|       months~13~Percent of diabetic subjects with ESRF serum creatinine
29   II,     5.  4.  2|          the percentage of diabetic subjects that had their blood pressure
30   II,     5.  4.  2|          the percentage of diabetic subjects that had their blood pressure
31   II,     5.  4.  4|           of diabetes. 10% of these subjects will develop diabetes in
32   II,     5.  5.Int|          anorexia nervosa in female subjects range from 0.1% to 5.7%,
33   II,     5.  5.  1|      countries. Overall, 17% of the subjects interviewed presented a
34   II,     5.  6.  3|   twenty-first.~ ~Most fractures in subjects aged over 50 are the result
35   II,     5.  7.  5|        decided to incorporate these subjects into public health policies
36   II,     5.  7.  7|             urine samples to detect subjects with microalbuminuria in
37   II,     5.  8.  3|           Lindberg et al 2006). All subjects with severe COPD were symptomatic.~ ~
38   II,     5.  8.  3|        present in 10.4% of the 2497 subjects with different index diseases
39   II,     5.  8.  4|               During the follow-up, subjects with chronic bronchitis
40   II,     5.  8.  4|       forced expiratory volume than subjects without it.~ ~In another
41   II,     5.  8.  5|         involved a total of 110,355 subjects (aged 53.5±11.5 yrs; 58.
42   II,     5.  9.  2|       mostly European). In stage I, subjects were given the ECRHS screening
43   II,     5.  9.  2|            smaller random sample of subjects who had completed the screening
44   II,     5.  9.  3|           by using data from 18,873 subjects involved in a large, nationally
45   II,     5.  9.  4|            of almost all sensitized subjects in European Countries (Belgium,
46   II,     5.  9.  4|     interview. In addition, in 8357 subjects, complete allergy skin and
47   II,     5.  9.  4|          healthy and more sensitive subjects, such as asthmatic and allergic
48   II,     5.  9.  6|     different diseases with healthy subjects, while specific questionnaires
49   II,     5. 10.  2|        avoided in highly sensitised subjects. Questionnaires and sensitization
50   II,     5. 11.  3|           contact dermatitis, where subjects develop a delayed type of
51   II,     5. 11.  3|             2005, the percentage of subjects living in Rome allergic
52   II,     5. 12.  3|       cardiovascular conditions) in subjects with cirrhotic liver; further
53   II,     5. 12.  5|        level to avoid cirrhosis.~In subjects with cirrhosis, it is possible
54   II,     5. 14.  2|          year.~Numerator: Number of subjects aged 2 and over who visited
55   II,     5. 14.  2|        Denominator: Total number of subjects aged 2 and over surveyed.~
56   II,     8.  2.  3|           randomly selected Swedish subjects aged from 20 to 80 years (
57   II,     8.  2.  3|             2003) showed that 16.9% subjects showed no hearing impairment (
58   II,     9        |             more than 85 % of older subjects spent at least 3.5 h per
59   II,     9.  3.  1|          than men with diabetes. Of subjects receiving medical care for
60   II,     9.  4.  4|             more than 85 % of older subjects spent at least 3.5 h per
61   II,     9.  5.  4|           term disabilities are all subjects for further research. The
62  III,    10.  1.  1|         expenditure increases: lean subjects demonstrate an increase
63  III,    10.  1.  1|      addition, overweight and obese subjects may feel stigmatized when
64  III,    10.  2.  1|        treatment outcomes and other subjects could benefit from future
65  III,    10.  2.  1|        severity and extent in young subjects increases with age, beginning
66  III,    10.  2.  1|    methodology and age range of the subjects. The annual change in the
67  III,    10.  2.  1|            Survey name~Acronym~Year~Subjects (number)~Age range~Method~
68  III,    10.  2.  1|          Europe. It includes 35,955 subjects (22,924 women and 13,031
69  III,    10.  2.  1|         more than half (56%) of the subjects with very low levels (<3
70  III,    10.  2.  1|         indeed been shown for these subjects compared to omnivores. Considering
71  III,    10.  2.  1|             Austria, and by younger subjects. However, in people over
72  III,    10.  2.  1|            frequent in hospitalized subjects. A low status was also found
73  III,    10.  2.  2|          160 mg/dL in very low risk subjects) in the large majority of
74  III,    10.  2.  3|         risk, especially in elderly subjects. A reduction of blood pressure
75  III,    10.  4.  2|           areas, for which the main subjects are:~ ~Qualified presumption
76  III,    10.  5.  2|           future reports on similar subjects (Eurofound, Institute of
77   IV,    12.  2    |       protein, fibers. In high risk subjects, if these interventions
78   IV,    12. 10    |            references to bioethical subjects see e. g. Federal Ministry
79   IV,    13.  7.  5|      informed consent from the data subjects. However, in a public health
80   IV,    13.  7.  5|      explicit consent from all data subjects. However, the Article 29