| Similarity | Rank | |
|---|---|---|
| the_effectiveness_of | 0.751 | 9595 |
| effectiveness | 0.743 | 5254 |
| its_effectiveness | 0.739 | 59159 |
| and_effectiveness_of | 0.683 | 67700 |
| the_efficacy_of | 0.674 | 20536 |
| effectiveness_of | 0.667 | 32347 |
| efficacy | 0.624 | 12475 |
| their_impact | 0.617 | 27710 |
| and_efficacy_of | 0.605 | 58080 |
| their_impact_on | 0.589 | 60299 |
| the_usefulness_of | 0.586 | 34775 |
| efficacy_of | 0.582 | 59785 |
| how_effective | 0.576 | 87974 |
| their_effect_on | 0.557 | 95747 |
| usefulness | 0.550 | 26552 |
| efficiency_of | 0.533 | 5753 |
| cost-effectiveness | 0.532 | 49879 |
| their_capacity_to | 0.521 | 60948 |
| be_ineffective | 0.519 | 38568 |
| their_limitation | 0.518 | 99282 |
| their_implementation | 0.517 | 30844 |
| their_strength_and | 0.507 | 68822 |
| evaluate_the_effectiveness_of | 0.507 | 80821 |
| its_impact | 0.504 | 43710 |
| ineffective | 0.504 | 17095 |