Sentence examples for between the groups indicated from inspiring English sources

Some differences between the groups indicated that sleep quality was lower in the split condition than the consolidated condition: the split sleeps had longer sleep onset latency (9.7 vs. 4.3 min), more arousals (7.4 vs. 5.7 per hour in bed), and a greater percentage of stage 1 sleep (4.1% vs. 3.1%), than the consolidated sleeps.

Other differences between the groups indicated that sleep quality was higher in the split condition than the consolidated condition: the split sleeps had a lower percentage of wake after sleep onset sleep (11.7% vs. 17.6%), and a greater percentage of slow wave sleep (30.2% vs. 23.8%), than the consolidated sleeps.

In our study, a comparative analysis between the groups indicated that buckle causes more astigmatic changes than encircling element.

The one significant difference found between the groups indicated an association between CPHP and reduced weight carried.

Importantly, the low plasma corticosterone concentration observed, which was not different between the groups, indicated that the exercised animals did not experience additional stress due to the exercise regime.

A comparative analysis between the groups indicated that the increase in posterior corneal elevation between groups I & III and groups II & III were found to be highly significant (I vs III: p= 0.001; II vs III: p= 0.001).

In addition, there were no changes in paired-pulse profiles between the groups, indicating that CSD did not induce any presynaptic alterations.

Nevertheless, overlap was also documented between the groups, indicating that some undergraduate students employed expert-like sort rules and some experts used novice-like sort rules.

The rats were healthy during the experimental procedures and no differences were detected between the groups, indicating that the use of HBBM does not result in any obvious clinical problems.

Accordingly, rolling and adherent leukocytes in venules of the dorsal skinfold chamber were found in a physiological range after scaffold implantation and did not significantly differ between the groups, indicating a good in vivo biocompatibility.

The alignment of the tibia, as measured by an independent observer in the immediate postoperative and 1-year follow-up X-rays, did not show any significant difference between the groups, indicating that there was no secondary loss of reduction.