Sentence examples for substantially smaller study from inspiring English sources

Previous studies included substantially smaller study populations [15, 16] or used other techniques as a standard of reference (TIMI flow in a previous report [17] vs. SPECT MPI in the present study).

In this substantially smaller study sample, associations of sugar intake with SBP, DBP, adiponectin, insulin, and HOMA-IR were statistically insignificant.

A substantially smaller study in Tanzania reported lower cure rates in pregnant women (18% failures; 6/33 patients) than in nonpregnant women (5% failures; 1/22 patients) (11).

The previously published results were based on substantially smaller study groups than the ones we describe here, raising the possibility that the published findings are a false positive finding.

For GLUT1, the overall between-study variation was large as well, but substantially smaller for studies investigating membranous staining only and the best evidence studies (these study groups again largely overlapped).

The sample sizes of these studies were substantially smaller than our study and information on confounders was limited.

8 Larger differences in stroke risk between the sexes were found in the Framingham study (hazard ratio 1.9), Euro heart survey (1.8), and ATRIA study (1.5), 1 4 16 17 but these studies were substantially smaller than the present study.

This report included over 1,900 patients, although still substantially smaller than our study.

Two factors may explain this; firstly the current study was substantially smaller than the previous study (and may thus have lacked the power to show weak associations), and secondly the statistical analysis in the current study was more sophisticated than in the earlier work.

In our analyses, this meant that the lower bound comprised information of a substantially smaller number of studies than the higher bound, thus presenting a rather unstable measure.

However, the number of p53 mutation positive cases (n = 34, mutation prevalence = 11%) was substantially smaller than in our study (n = 128, mutation prevalence = 15%) or in the study by Conway et al. (2002; n = 108, mutation prevalence = 24%), and the results appeared to be unstable.