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 2 Comparison of the two inspection methods
| Display effect, points | NMR, n = 120 | CT, n = 120 | t | P value |
| Bone loss | 1.53 (0.31) | 1.49 (0.33) | 0.968 | 0.334 |
| Fracture site | 1.61 (0.24) | 1.59 (0.25) | 0.632 | 0.528 |
| Fracture displacement | 1.12 (0.29) | 1.09 (0.26) | 0.844 | 0.400 |
| Fracture comminution | 1.31 (0.31) | 1.28 (0.33) | 0.726 | 0.469 |
- 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