The phrase "accordingly indicated that" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used when referring to something that has been stated or pointed out in a manner that aligns with previous information or context.
Example: "The report accordingly indicated that the project was on track to meet its deadlines."
Alternatives: "thus stated that" or "therefore noted that".
The results accordingly indicated that the adsorption kinetics of atrazine adsorbed onto the PA6/PPy NFM was closer to the pseudo-second-order kinetic model than the pseudo-first-order kinetic model, suggesting that the adsorption process was a multi-stage process.
The results accordingly indicated that the adsorption kinetics of three estrogens adsorbed onto the Nylon 6 nanofiber mat closely followed the pseudo-second-order kinetic model (Figure 3a) rather than the pseudo-first-order kinetic model (Figure 3b), suggesting that intra-particle/membrane diffusion process was the rate-controlling step of the adsorption process [23].
Several reports accordingly indicate that priority is assigned on the basis of a variety of clinical and non-clinical factors including personal preferences [ 12- 19].
Mr. Donaldson added that the new, more flexible coverage would be priced accordingly, indicating that rates would be higher for the new types of coverage than for the company's more restrictive H.M.O.'s.
As the Cu2+ concentration gradually increased, the intensity of Cu crystal diffraction peaks increased accordingly, indicating that more Cu NPs were generated in the wood template.
On the other hand, grasslands had 42.6 and 10.7 kg/ha of dry matter during the wet and dry seasons accordingly, indicating that 4.9% and 3.9% of the wet weight biomass could be available as dry matter.
As the amount of Ag NPs increased in the PVA nanofibers, the enhancement factor did not increase accordingly, which indicated that different morphology of Ag NP aggregation had a great influence on the enhancement effects of SERS [116].
Accordingly, data indicated that the PG-induced toxicosis was associated with a different metabolic response to the feeding.
However, when it was deleted from the data set, the estimated clearance for most other subjects dropped accordingly, which indicated that the estimates were inflated when subject 20 was included in the previous analysis.
Accordingly, our results indicated that at the indicated doses, the NO donor did not cause a significant effect on cell viability up to 72 h of NO exposure (data not shown).
Accordingly, the Court indicated that the FDA "must 'demonstrate with empirical evidence that disclaimers similar to [those] suggested...would bewilder consumers and fail to correct for deceptiveness.'" Id. (emphasis added) (citing Pearson I, 164 F.3d at 659-60).
