1) for other symptoms compared with control group). |
2) group, in PF (alone) group, and PF + EVOO group. |
3) molar agenesis were assigned to a control group. |
4) d into eight groups with six rats in each group. |
5) , clonazepam abuse, and combination abuse group. |
6) was diminished when compared with the HFD group. |
7) mmetry after PEERS, versus a waitlist ASD group. |
8) istilled water except the distilled water group. |
9) aining of WRF versus compulsory education group. |
10) ine was similarly injected in the control group. |
11) tly from baseline to months 3 or 6 in any group. |
12) ivity may also be protective for the Oslo group. |
13) os exposed to 3.75 µg/ml and the control group. |
14) g structures in order to reach the target group. |
15) BTs that most efficiently applied to each group. |
16) nd kidney tissues, when compared with DOX group. |
17) was determined when compared with control group. |
18) ely small compared with those of the BoTA group. |
19) ns increased significantly in DES-treated group. |
20) , in turn, the poor prognosis in this age group. |
21) culated with MF compared with the control group. |
22) observed compared with animals of control group. |
23) remission occurred in two dogs from each group. |
24) similar to that of pregabalin-pretreated group. |
25) red reperfusion strategy for this patient group. |
26) ated histologically in the nerve guidance group. |
27) pared with no degeneration in the control group. |
28) in the 200 mg/kg/day (p < 0.003) group. |
29) dolescents, especially in the younger-age group. |
30) period (0.24 ± 0.23 mm) in the LPT group. |
31) s RS16 and RS96 was lower compared with R group. |
32) ssigned to either intervention or control group. |
33) creased slightly less in the intervention group. |
|