text: The second model uses the same principles but instead of looking only at the lag-to-treatment 
  distribution for the 2005 cohort (i.e. the top row of Table 13), it incorporates available lag-to- 
  treatment data from all new presentations between 2005 and 2014 (i.e. all rows in Table 13). 
  This is done by calculating the total number of individuals within the sample who have a lag-to- 
  treatment of a year or less, the total number with a lag of 1-2 years and so on. By comparing 
  these numbers with the total number of individuals within the sample who could have come to 
  treatment with that length of lag or less, it is possible to produce a 10-year lag-to treatment 
  distribution, which is similar to Table 11 except uses data from the whole sample. (The 
  mathematical calculations for this are set out in the appendix of Hickman et al., 2001). As before 
  we then index the trend to the older cohort to model the tail of the distribution and use the 
  results to calculate incidence in an identical way to the first model. The results are shown in 
  Table 14 below, which is a slimmed-down version of Table 13, showing the only column that 
  has changed (the one headed `percentage of total incidence accounted for by observed’) and 
  the impact this has on resulting incidence (in the final column.) One of the important differences 
  between the methods is that method 2, which incorporates all the data from the 2005-14 sample 
  has a much shorter lag to treatment overall, which suggests that lag-times have generally 
  reduced since 2005. 