The phrase "a subsequent study with" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used when referring to a study that follows or comes after another study in a sequence or timeline.
Example: "A subsequent study with a larger sample size confirmed the initial findings."
Alternatives: "a following study involving" or "a later study using".
Moreover, a subsequent study with 35 normal-hearing children showed that the Göttinger I can also be administered to children with normal cognitive and language development younger than three years of age.
An attempt to measure the spin-orbit misalignment of the innermost planet reported that it was in a nearly polar orbit, but this interpretation of the data has since been challenged by a subsequent study, with noted inconsistencies between the implied and measured stellar rotation.
For example, humans exhibit differences in the morphology of the central sulcus, which is deeper in the left hemisphere of right handers and in the right hemisphere of left handers [27], although in a subsequent study with a larger sample the handedness effect was only demonstrated in human males [28].
A subsequent study with 553 twin pairs found similar results [ 43].
These findings were confirmed in a subsequent study with a longer follow-up [ 71].
A subsequent study with this new marker panel identified a peak of transmission disequilibrium at marker JA04 (G72384) [ 14].
In a subsequent study, treatment with crocins (30 mg/kg and to a lesser extent also 15 mg/kg) attenuated scopolamine (0.2 mg/kg -induced performg/kg -induced in the radial water maze test.
In a subsequent study in patients with low HDL-C levels, modest coronary plaque regression was demonstrated on serial intravascular ultrasound, but changes with RVX-208 did not differ significantly from placebo (Nicholls et al, 2013).
A previous European study showed that the differences in coding the underlying cause of death by the national statistical offices can lead to underestimation or overestimation of the MMR compared with standardised coding by a European panel of experts; 24 these discrepancies were confirmed in a subsequent study comparing Europe with the USA.
In a subsequent study in patients with visual impairment or moderate to severe visual field loss, only 39% were able to instill a single drop without touching the eye; age (<70 vs ≥70 years) was found to be a significant predictor for less successful instillation [ 4].
This was addressed in a subsequent study of 53 patients with lung cancer where NaF-PET was compared with planar bone scintigraphy augmented with SPECT of the spine.
