EQ VAS was not significantly different between types of fractures (p > 0.42) in either sex.
For assessment of the effect of fracture severity, we examined if EQ-5D-3 L and EQ VAS differed between types of fractures (wedge, biconcave, and compression) and numbers of fractures (categorized into 0, 1, 2, and 3 or more) using ANOVA, applying the Bonferroni for multiple correction test.
In this study we did not find a significant relationship between type of fracture (open vs closed), anatomical site of tibia fracture, type of trauma, fixation method, or mechanism of injury and development of ACS.
The results also showed that US can be used to distinguish between different types of fractures and subsequently treat them accordingly.
We propose that this discrepancy might partly be explained by differences between 2 types of fractures.
With EQ-5D-3 L scores of 0.74, 0.71, and 0.79 in those with wedge, biconcave, and compression fractures, respectively, there was no association between EQ-5D-3 L and types of fracture in women (p = 0.322).
The following types of fracture were included: hip fracture, humeral fracture, clinical (symptomatic) vertebral fracture, distal forearm fracture, and rib fracture.
The hydraulic fracturing design coding was done for two different types of fracture extent namely vertical fracture and horizontal fracture.
History of fracture including hip, wrist and other types of fracture was ascertained with structured questionnaire via direct interview, and other types of fracture included vertebral fracture and other fractures (except for hip, wrist and vertebral fracture).
