On the other hand, the criteria proposed by Mantel led to the selection of a group of women who received more complex care, and considering the linkage between complexity of care and severity, we believe that the Mantel set of criteria allowed the identification of a group of women closer to the concept of near miss than the Waterstone's criteria did.
AKIN criteria allowed the identification of more patients as having acute kidney injury (50.4% versus 43.8%, P = 0.018) and classified more patients with Stage 1 (risk in RIFLE) (21.1% versus 14.7%, P = 0.003), but no differences were observed for Stage 2 (injury in RIFLE) (10.1% versus 11%, P = 0.655) and for Stage 3 (failure in RIFLE) (19.2% versus 18.1%, P = 0.672).
AKIN criteria allowed the identification of more patients as having AKI (P = 0.018) and classified more patients with Stage 1 (risk in RIFLE) (P = 0.003); however, no statistically significant differences were observed for Stage 2 (injury in RIFLE) (P = 0.655) and for Stage 3 (failure in RIFLE) (P = 0.672).
Not infrequently in outcomes research, geographic criteria (such as country, regions, hospitals) are used because such criteria allow the identification of clinically comparable groups that receive very different treatments, whose resulting outcomes can then be assessed.
The search criteria adopted allowed the identification of 17,436 SSR contained in 13,912 contigs (Supplementary Table S2 and Table 5).
Alignments meeting our criteria (see Methods) allowed the identification of repeated elements in 492 unisequences, which corresponded to 9% of the B. alternatus ESTs (Additional file 2); (retro transposons have also been identified in B. insularis [ 13] and L. muta [ 18].
Similarity searches across the newly created database using same criteria as mentioned above, allowed the identification of 1699 and 2434 reads as part of repeated sequences in AYE and SDF, respectively.
This allowed the identification of affected siblings, under the same criteria as that applied for the probands (described above, expressive language scale and/or receptive language scale >1.5SD below that expected and non-verbal IQ>80).
