Sentence examples for both groups when considering from inspiring English sources

Participants' confidence that they will "know what to do during and after" a hazard decreases by approximately a third among both groups when considering a lahar instead of a flood.

Figure 3 shows, respectively, the comparison between both groups when considering Harris Hip Scores and visual analog pain scales (VAS) collected at days 30, 60, and 90 (HHS, 49.8 versus 43.4/78.5 versus 73.5/8 3.1versus 81.1; VAS, 3.4 versus 4.8/2.2 versus 3.1/1.9 versus 2.1).

The proportion of participants with any HSV shedding during the study period was similar in the HAART and non-HAART groups when considering both HSV types together (58.5% vs 56.8%), HSV-1 alone (34.2% vs 29.6%) or HSV-2 alone (41.5% vs 38.6%).

Consequently, there is an increasing need to be able to evaluate change across multiple taxonomic groups when considering overall ecosystem state.

On average, the RMS error was higher in the asymmetrical groups compared with the symmetrical groups when considering all three locations (lower, upper and whole faces) separately (3.33, 2.39 and 2.85 versus 1.37, 1.23 and 1.52, respectively).

The mortality rate was not significantly different between the groups when considering the longer term data of the SOS trial (OR 1.92 [0.17–21.33], p = 0.597, heterogeneity: I2 = 75%, p = 0.019).

There were significant overall differences between groups when considering plasma IL-8 and TNF-α.

The same differences were seen in all groups, when considering cumulative risk at 50 years of age (Table  1).

The enhancement variation statistically differed between groups when considering the absolute variation (P = 0.0014; 95% CI [−53.47; −12.85]).

Similarly, this 24-month probability was not different between the two groups when considering death and SAEs combined (27.0% vs. 40.7% respectively, Log-rank test, p = 0.08).

It could be noticed that the DP value is lower than the values of other groups when considering the B-B score alone.