Part, Chapter, Paragraph
1 II, 5. 4. 2| aspect that still limits the validity of local outputs at a broader
2 II, 5. 4. 6| information on the disease), validity (they should be realistic),
3 II, 5. 4. 7| the question about the validity and accuracy of data residing
4 II, 5. 5. 1| include comparability and validity of prevalence and incidence
5 II, 5. 5. 3| intervention question the validity of prediction criteria and
6 II, 5. 5. 3| complete, and with a diagnostic validity for definite MS of 94%.
7 II, 5. 5. 3| History, data collection and validity. Dan Med Bull 48: 91–94.~
8 II, 5. 6. 4| musculoskeletal conditions because of validity of diagnosis, but a Norwegian
9 II, 5. 7. 7| Zeeuw, et al (2005): The validity of screening based on spot
10 II, 5. 12. 3| however, be due to changed validity of cirrhosis diagnosis and
11 II, 5. 12. 3| and death certification validity from liver disease is therefore
12 II, 8. 2. 1| vary in scope and external validity, and are typically not linked
13 II, 8. 2. 1| 1998). Reliability and validity of the Mini PAS-ADD for
14 III, 10. 1. 1| Confounding is a threat to validity that should be controlled
15 III, 10. 2. 1| socioeconomic differences in the validity of self-reports have been
16 III, 10. 2. 1| Tudor-Smith C, Moore L (2005): Validity of self-reported height
17 III, 10. 2. 1| Goldberg M, Leclerc A (2000): Validity of self-reported weight
18 III, 10. 4. 2| usefulness of markers of proven validity intermediate effects when
19 III, 10. 5. 2| information is available on the validity of the reported data.~In
20 IV, 11. 1. 5| the basis of scientific validity and reliability in addition
21 IV, 13. 7. 5| seriously jeopardise the validity of data which are supposed
