Copyright
©The Author(s) 2020.
World J Clin Cases. Sep 26, 2020; 8(18): 4067-4074
Published online Sep 26, 2020. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v8.i18.4067
Published online Sep 26, 2020. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v8.i18.4067
Table 1 Comparison of conformity rates among types of diagnosis, n (%)
AO classification | Surgical pathology, case | NMR, n = 120 | CT, n = 120 | χ2 | P value |
B1 | 33 | 33 (100.00) | 27 (81.82) | 19.998 | 0.001 |
B2 | 16 | 16 (100.00) | 13 (81.25) | 20.690 | 0.001 |
B3 | 10 | 8 (80.00) | 7 (70.00) | 2.672 | 0.102 |
C1 | 32 | 31 (96.88) | 26 (81.25) | 12.542 | 0.001 |
C2 | 20 | 18 (90.00) | 17 (85.00) | 1.143 | 0.285 |
C3 | 9 | 9 (100.00) | 9 (100.00) | 0.001 | 1.001 |
- Citation: Liu XD, Wang HB, Zhang TC, Wan Y, Zhang CZ. Comparison between computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in clinical diagnosis and treatment of tibial platform fractures. World J Clin Cases 2020; 8(18): 4067-4074
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2307-8960/full/v8/i18/4067.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v8.i18.4067