The phrase "a subsequently published" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used to refer to something that has been published after a certain event or time.
Example: "The findings were later confirmed in a subsequently published study."
Alternatives: "a later published" or "a following publication".
A subsequently published comment referred to this as a long-standing practice [ 11].
A subsequently published retrospective review of hospital records did not reveal an increased risk of hospitalization for pancreatitis in patients using sitagliptin or exenatide compared with those using metformin or glipizide for diabetes therapy.
In the case of pneumonia the similarity of studies to those identified in a subsequently published Cochrane review [ 17] are reassuring but for other topics this remains a threat to our findings.
A subsequently published trial of 2-4 year old children [ 20] examined the effect of 22,600 ppm varnish applied twice a year over 2 years and reported a 57% reduction in caries increment compared to a control group.
However, in a subsequently published association study using data from 419 American AIS patients and their families, Sharma S et al. [ 1] did not find the association between the IL-17RC gene polymorphism and the susceptibility to AIS.
Similar findings were reported in a subsequently published study in RA patients (naïve and switchers) treated with Etn [ 22], which demonstrated that naïve patients and switchers with ADA had a greater clinical response than did patients who switched without ADA [ 22].
On the other hand, the cases of CA-MRSA IE subsequently published occurred in healthy young patients without classical risk factors for IE [ 7].
In 1942, he moved to the Illinois Institute of Technology and in 1943 received his doctorate from the University of Chicago for a dissertation subsequently published in 1947 as "Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organizations".
In a document subsequently published by the NHMRC, it appears that GTRAP reviewed the proposed UNSW study and recommended that it not proceed.
(Tapes of the sessions were leaked to a columnist, Michael Tomasky, who subsequently published a book about the campaign, "Hillary's Turn").
In 2005, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) held a consensus conference and subsequently published a series of six articles summarizing recommendations to improve clinical trials in chronic GVHD.
