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 3 Comparison of the detection rate of fracture, the detection rate of compound injury and the accuracy of fracture classification, n (%)
| Items, total = 120, combined injury = 108 | NMR | CT | χ2 | P value |
| Fracture detection rate | 116 (96.67) | 108 (90.00) | 3.576 | 0.059 |
| Fracture classification accuracy | 115 (95.83) | 99 (82.50) | 9.196 | 0.002 |
| Combined injury detection rate | 105 (97.22) | 103 (95.37) | 0.480 | 0.489 |
- 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