Of course, the above table is very far from the last word on the matter.

The above table is based on primary, possibly biased, sources.

A simple review of the above table should make these rules obvious.

Note that for the study involved in the above table was a personal series of 164 patients.

This is not taken into account by the above table.

Only the top ten championship positions are shown in the above table.

Some of these are not contained in the above tables.

From the above table, clearly there is a problem with the above theory.

I suspect the percentages would be quite different to the above table.

This applies to nearly all the examples in the above table.