Part,  Chapter, Paragraph

 1    -,     1        |        associated with making such comparisons. For instance, definitions
 2    -,     1        |      social factors. Cross-country comparisons should, therefore, always
 3    -,     1        |      variations of measurement, if comparisons are to be strengthened.~ ~
 4    I,     2.  4    |          at constant prices allows comparisons of the dynamics of economic
 5   II,     4.  3    |         countries: calculation and comparisons. Genus LVII(2): 89-101.~ ~
 6   II,     5.  2.  3|        trends was not possible and comparisons among countries are not
 7   II,     5.  2.  7|      trends in Stroke event rates? Comparisons of 15 populations in 9 countries
 8   II,     5.  3.  7|       cancer mortality in regional comparisons for cervical cancer (with
 9   II,     5.  4.  2|           as fit for international comparisons in diabetes.~Proliferative
10   II,     5.  4.  2|   indicators fit for international comparisons.~The annual incidence of
11   II,     5.  5.  3|    Available data on inter-country comparisons of hospital in-patient admission
12   II,     5.  5.  3|    methodologies. Point prevalence comparisons made within and across surveys
13   II,     5.  5.  3|            is not possible to make comparisons. A study published in 2004 (
14   II,     5.  5.  3|         the WPSI vocational scale: comparisons with other correlates of
15   II,     5.  7.  2|          renal registries hampered comparisons across Member States and
16   II,     5.  7.  2|           Registry facilitated the comparisons as at least a large part
17   II,     5.  8.  3|    Although, as already discussed, comparisons between countries may not
18   II,     5.  9.  1|      asthma and rhinitis althought comparisons are difficult due to the
19   II,     5.  9.  4|         skin prick tests. However, comparisons between studies and between
20   II,     5. 10.  2|           to allow between-country comparisons across Europe has been made
21   II,     5. 10.  7|           and intolerances (2001): Comparisons arising from the European
22   II,     5. 11.  3|           1978; Herd et al, 1994).~Comparisons between different studies
23   II,     5. 14.  2|         and systems is encouraged.~Comparisons of the global frequency
24   II,     5. 14.  2|            studies markedly limits comparisons between countries and regions.
25   II,     5. 14.  5|  information to make international comparisons and support their national
26   II,     6.  3.  3|       infection is not notifiable. Comparisons between reporting countries
27   II,     6.  3.  3|            countries making direct comparisons inappropriate. The highest
28   II,     6.  3.  6|        many countries makes direct comparisons between them very difficult.
29   II,     6.  3.  6|          surveillance systems make comparisons between countries very difficult.
30   II,     6.  3.  6|         age groups under 15 years. Comparisons between reporting countries
31   II,     8.  2.  1|            not available to permit comparisons of people in this group
32   II,     8.  2.  1|       essential in order to permit comparisons between persons who have
33   II,     9.  1.  1|           common criteria distorts comparisons between countries.~Neonatal
34   II,     9.  1.  1|            days after live birth).~Comparisons of the neonatal mortality
35   II,     9.  1.  1|            Sources~ ~International comparisons of data relating to pregnancy
36   II,     9.  1.  1|         artifacts in international comparisons of infant mortality. Paediatr
37   II,     9.  1.  2|      presented in section 9.1.2.3. Comparisons of the proportion of cases
38   II,     9.  3.  1|      ethnic groups. Cross-cultural comparisons demonstrate that reported
39   II,     9.  3.  2|     enhances our understanding and comparisons of health in the perinatal
40   II,     9.  3.  2|           cannot be transposed for comparisons between Member States because
41   II,     9.  3.  2|         artifacts in international comparisons of infant mortality. Paediatr
42   II,     9.  3.  3|     lifestyle surveys and reported comparisons from Denmark (Kangas et
43   II,     9.  3.  3|       purposes, and cross-national comparisons were not published. In the
44   II,     9.  3.  3|            partners. International comparisons show that Irish people tend
45   II,     9.  3.  3|            and HIV/AIDS in Europe: comparisons of national surveys. (Edited
46   II,     9.  3.  3|            and HIV/AIDS in Europe: Comparisons of National Surveys. UCL
47   II,     9.  4.  3|          aged persons is sporadic. Comparisons of the notification rate
48  III,    10.  2.  1|            2006d) aims at allowing comparisons in developing countries
49  III,    10.  2.  1|           to provide cross-country comparisons, national data sets are
50  III,    10.  2.  1|        obese individuals.~ ~Making comparisons between countries was difficult,
51  III,    10.  2.  1| difficulties in attempting earlier comparisons. As for other diseases related
52  III,    10.  2.  1|            surveys can be used for comparisons of dietary intake data between
53  III,    10.  2.  1|            To enable international comparisons of household survey data
54  III,    10.  2.  1|      products.~ ~Table 10.2.1.7.6. Comparisons between European Hearth
55  III,    10.  2.  1|        also to allow inter-country comparisons. The White Paper urges “
56  III,    10.  3.  1|       comparability. International comparisons of the noise levels in different
57  III,    10.  3.  1|       facilitated.~ ~International comparisons of annoyance rates are hampered
58  III,    10.  3.  4|      ambiguity of terminology make comparisons and use of the different
59  III,    10.  5.  2|          2007): UrbanRural Health Comparisons: Key results of the 2002/
60   IV,    11.  1.  1|        associated with making such comparisons. For instance, definitions
61   IV,    11.  1.  1|      social factors. Cross-country comparisons should, therefore, always
62   IV,    11.  3.  2|       control, international price comparisons and reference pricing. Price
63   IV,    11.  3.  2|      prices, price-caps, and price comparisons with other countries; the
64   IV,    11.  3.  2|    government. International price comparisons to determine prices are
65   IV,    11.  6.  1|            expenditure and drawing comparisons across countries, owing
66   IV,    11.  6.  2|  generalizations and cross-country comparisons inappropriate.~ ~Despite
67   IV,    11.  6.  3|         Furthermore, international comparisons of progressiveness in healthcare
68   IV,    11.  6.  3|   catastrophic payments. Note that comparisons between the Wagstaff et
69   IV,    11.  6.  5|           E (1999): "International comparisons of health care expenditures:
70   IV,    13.  7.  3|  international cooperation, making comparisons between member states as