The phrase "a comparatively small sample" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used when discussing research, statistics, or any context where the size of a sample is being compared to something larger.
Example: "The study was conducted on a comparatively small sample of participants, which may affect the generalizability of the results."
Alternatives: "a relatively small sample" or "a modest sample size".
The NEISS data set, which spans from 2003 through 2013, includes about four thousand decoration-related E.R. visits, a comparatively small sample.
Likewise, Bamfield (1994) examined a comparatively small sample of four action sites against one control site.
The patients with iatrogenic damage after dental procedures, however, still represent a comparatively small sample [13, 14].
Because there were missing genotypes for some carriers and a comparatively small sample of individual genotypes, hazard ratios (Table S3) estimated via the proportional Cox model restricted to only the raw genotype data have limited power.
While this study was the largest of its kind, the results were based on a comparatively small sample of participants.
Limitations include a comparatively small sample size to detect important changes in less common outcomes, including some physical and psychological outcomes.
One issue is poor genome coverage; the chip used surveys a comparatively small sampling of the predicted coding capacity for the full Eutrema genome [ 13, 14].
This left their analyses with a comparatively smaller sample size (N = 3762 for 4/5 years, N = 4638 for 6/7 years), potentially leading to lack of power through small numbers of stepfathers and less accurate estimates.
Although these findings suggest that resettled refugees have low mental health literacy when judged against the concepts of Western mental health professionals, the generalizability of the findings was limited by the use of vignettes written from a Western perspective, the recruitment of participants from a treatment-seeking sample, and the comparatively small sample size.
This result is not surprising, given the limited power in our comparatively small sample size (for a GWAS) to detect the small effects of individual genetic variants.
A limitation of this study was that the treatment period was relatively short compared with previous studies of canagliflozin and the comparatively small sample size of female subjects (11 females vs 50 males).
