Part,  Chapter, Paragraph

 1   II,     5.  2.  2    | co-morbidities, which make data validation and prevention more difficult
 2   II,     5.  2.  2    |     results and complicate data validation.~The most effective preventive
 3   II,     5.  2.  3    |     groups, while the degree of validation of the diagnostic information
 4   II,     5.  5.  3    |          2003): Development and validation of an international appraisal
 5   II,     5.  5.  3    |       Fraser RT (1980): Further validation of the WPSI vocational scale:
 6   II,     5.  6.  3    |       which utilised a clinical validation of rheumatic diagnosis and
 7   II,     5. 11.  3    |        by questionnaire without validation of positive responses. In
 8   II,     5. 11.  3    |       study from Denmark, after validation of a subset of positive
 9   II,     5. 11.  7    |  Self-reported skin complaints: validation of a questionnaire for population
10  III,    10.  2.  1    |      Niedhammer et al, 2000). A validation study conducted in Wales
11  III,    10.  2.  1    |       European Food Consumption Validation(EFCOVAL) project, which
12  III,    10.  2.  1    |         further development and validation of a trans-European food
13  III,    10.  2.  4    |          Cordon-Cardo C (2001): Validation of tissue microarrays for
14  III,    10.  4.  2(27)|                          Method validation and quality control procedures
15  III,    10.  4.  2    |     devoted to the project.~ ~ ~Validation of results represents an
16  III,    10.  4.  2    |         While highly desirable, validation may be difficult or, in