Skip to main content

Table 1 General characteristics of the participants and fractures

From: Does interferential current provide additional benefit to orthopedic rehabilitation for the patients with proximal humeral fractures? A randomized controlled study

Variablesa

IFC group (n = 18)

Sham group (n = 17)

p

Age, year (mean ± SD)

58.9 ± 10.7

62.0 ± 9.5

0.381

Gender

   

 Female

12 (66.7)

11 (64.7)

0.813

 Male

6 (33.3)

6 (35.3)

 

Education level

   

 Primary school or less

11 (61.1)

13 (76.4)

 

 High school

4 (22.2)

2 (11.8)

0.645

 College

3 (16.7)

2 (11.8)

 

BMI (mean ± SD)

28.0 ± 3.2

30.8 ± 5.6

0.103

Presence of comorbidity

9 (50)

12 (70.6)

0.214

Number of comorbidities

   

 One

5 (27.8)

4 (23.5)

0.273

 Two or more

4 (22.2)

8 (47)

 

History of osteoporosis

5 (27.8)

3 (17.6)

0.539

Regular exercise habit

2 (11.1)

2 (11.8)

0.998

Fractured side

   

 Right

15 (83.3)

15 (88.2)

0.173

 Left

3 (16.7)

2 (11.8)

 

Effected Side

   

 Dominant

9 (50.0)

11 (64.7)

0.942

 Non- dominant

9 (50.0)

6 (35.3)

 

Neer Classification

   

 Type 1

4 (22.2)

2 (11.8)

 

 Type 2

3 (16.7)

6 (35.3)

0.125

 Type 3

11 (61.1)

9 (52.9)

 

Anatomic segment

   

 Greater tuberosity

5 (27.8)

3 (17.6)

 

 Surgical neck

2 (11.1)

5 (29.4)

0.456

 Greater tuberosity and surgical neck

11 (61.1)

9 (52.9)

 

VAS resting pain (med, IQR)

8 (1.8)

8 (1)

0.891

  1. BMI Body mass index, IFC Interferential current, SD standard deviation, VAS Visual analog scale
  2. an(%), if otherwise specified