The phrase "act was compared" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used when discussing a comparison made between a specific act and another subject or standard.
Example: "In the study, the act was compared to previous legislation to assess its impact on public health."
Alternatives: "the action was contrasted" or "the deed was evaluated".
When the two sites (Western Sydney and ACT) were compared, a considerably higher number of the ACT participants identified the affordability of treatment as a contributing factor in their economic hardship.
Finally, it was a strength that different groups of professional rescue workers involved in the same terror acts were compared and also the inclusion of unaffiliated volunteers.
There are further proposals whereby acts are compared in terms of how much uncertainty they can tolerate (which again depends on levels of confidence) and yet still be a satisfactory option (see, e.g., Ben-Haim 2001).
The incidence of specific partnerships and sex acts were compared within and between bisexual and exclusive MSW.
DLDB that were found to stock or sell ACTs were compared to those that did not in regards to geographic characteristics using t-tests (Satterthwaite tests were used when variances were unequal and pooled tests otherwise) or chi-square tests as appropriate.
For example, the average population density at which DLDB stocking or selling ACTs were located was compared to the average for those DLDB not stocking or selling ACTs using a t-test, while the relationship between stocking of ACTs and other antimalarial drugs was compared with a chi-square test.
The ACT suggested by the G-BA was compared with the ACT within the manufacturers' dossier.
When the CARAT10 SLA was compared with ACT and ACQ, both differences and standard deviations were smaller (vs. ACT mean -0.01, standard deviation 0.16; vs. ACQ6 mean 0.06, standard deviation 0.14), indicating a higher absolute agreement with the other measures compared to the CARAT10 TS.
The molecular identification of the isolated bacterium was done by 16S rDNA sequencing (universal primers 27F: 5′ AGA GTT TGA TCC TGG CTC AG 3′ and 1492R: 5′ TAC GGY TAC CTT GTT ACG ACT T 3′ were used) that was compared with reported sequences in the Genbank database.
