The phrase "a common discrepancy" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used to refer to a frequent difference or inconsistency observed in data, opinions, or situations.
Example: "In our analysis, we found a common discrepancy between the reported figures and the actual sales data."
Alternatives: "a frequent inconsistency" or "a typical difference".
Hence, the most common discrepancy occurred when a condition was listed in the medical record but was not endorsed by the patient in the health questionnaire.
A pilot study of pharmacist-led medication reconciliation in two university teaching hospitals, elsewhere in Ireland, also identified omission of a pre-admission medication as the most common discrepancy [ 37].
Another common discrepancy arose from the fact that a variant was determined to be homozygous in one of the genomes and heterozygous in the other, even though both genomes were homozygous.
43 The most common discrepancy between guidelines and practice was the premature insertion of ventilation tubes.
The most common discrepancy concerned the omission of home medication being reordered (55.1%); 66.3% of omission discrepancies were in the standard arm and 34.3% in the intervention arm.
While in detection of structural aberrations, concordance was over 90%, the most common discrepancy was observed in detection of the ploidy status (14.3%; 13/91).
Motivated to explain the common discrepancy between phylodynamic inferences and those made from hospital records, the authors apply their new method to a case study of mosquito-borne dengue virus in southern Vietnam.
Thus, the least common discrepancy observed- in terms of reporting no treatment need whilst having impacts were most frequent in urban areas and among children in the less poor wealth categories.
The most common discrepancy noted was in the interpretation of presence of chemotherapy response with the reviewing oncologist tending to consider any mention of fibrosis, necrosis or inflammation as presence of response to chemotherapy while the reviewing histopathologist required a specific statement about the presence or absence of chemotherapy response.
The most common discrepancies were predictions of a low RS risk when cases were true intermediate and predictions of an intermediate RS risk when cases were true low.
The most common discrepancies arose when Sequenom typing classified a site as homozygous, but Illumina sequencing identified it as heterozygous.
