Retrospective Statistical Analysis on Patients Admitted to a Korean Medicine Hospital by Traffic Accident

Article information

J Korean Med. 2021;42(1):26-45

Publication date (electronic) : 2021 March 01

doi : https://doi.org/10.13048/jkm.21003

Hong-Kyoung Kim ¹

, Jeong-il Kim ²

, Young-il Kim ¹^,

¹Dept. of Acupuncture & Moxibustion Medicine, College of Korean Medicine, Daejeon University

²Dept. of Statistics, H-Liveral Arts College, Daejeon University

Correspondence to: Young-il, Kim, 75, Daedeok-daero 176beon-gil, Seo-gu, Daejeon, Republic of Korea. Tel: +82-42-470-9137, E-mail: omdkim01@dju.kr

Received 2020 December 24; Revised 2021 February 7; Accepted 2021 February 18.

Abstract

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to investigate characteristics of patients who were admitted to an oriental medicine hospital by traffic accident.

Methods

The medical charts of 346 patients admitted to an oriental medicine hospital from June 1, 2017 to May 31, 2018 were analyzed. The Numbering Rating Scale (NRS) and duration of hospitalization were used to evaluate characteristics of the patients.

Results

Acupuncture, Moxibustion, Infralux were used to treat all the patients. The most frequently used herbal medication was Danggwisu-san(22.25%). 87 patients(25.14%) visited the outpatient department after being discharged from the hospital. The most frequent complaint in terms of pain was cervical pain(82.7%) and of systemic symptom was headache(23.7%). Men and younger aged patients showed higher therapeutic effect than women and older ages. The most common duration of hospitalization was 2~4 days(42.73%) and positively correlated with therapeutic effect. The most frequent interval between time of injury and visit to the hospital was from 0–1 days(68.90%) and showed no relationship with therapeutic effect. The most frequent admission pathway was “Directly to the hospital”(57.51%). Admission pathway was proportionally associated with duration of hospitalization and treatment results were not. The most common vehicle type involved in the traffic accidents was a sedan(72.25%), accident type was a rear-end collision(43.64%) and showed no relationship with therapeutic effect.

Conclusions

In this study, therapeutic effects were highly correlated among men, younger ages, and duration of hospital stay, and was not for interval days, admission pathway, vehicle type, and accident type.

Keywords: Patient Characteristics; Traffic Accident; Korean Medicine Treatment

Table 1

Distribution of Korean Medicine Treatment

Table 2

Distribution of Herbal Medication

Table 3

Distribution of Visiting to Outpatient Department after Being Discharged from the Hospital

Table 4

Distribution of Chief Complaints in Terms of Pain Based on the Differences in NRS Scores between Admission and Discharge Days

Table 5

Distribution of Chief Complaints in Terms of Systemic Symptoms Induced by Traffic Accidents

Table 6

Distribution of Age and sex

Table 7

Distribution of Sex Based on the Differences in NRS Scores between Admission and Discharge Days, and Duration of Hospitalization

Table 8

Distribution of Age Based on the Differences in NRS Scores between Admission and Discharge Days, and Duration of Hospitalization

Table 9

Comparison of Sex and Age by Adjusted Discharge NRS Score

Table 10

Distribution of Duration of Hospitalization Based on the Differences in NRS Scores between Admission and Discharge Days

Table 11

Post-Hoc Test by Duration of Hospitalization

Table 12

Distribution of Interval between Time of Injury and Visit to Korean Medicine Hospital Based on the Differences in NRS Scores between Admission and Discharge Days, and Duration of Hospitalization

Table 13

Distribution of Pathway to Admission Based on the Differences in NRS Scores between Admission and Discharge Days, and Duration of Hospitalization

Table 14

Comparison of Pathway to Admission by Adjusted Discharge NRS Score

Table 15

Distribution of Vehicle Types Based on the Differences in NRS Scores between Admission and Discharge Days, and Duration of Hospitalization

Table 16

Distribution of Accident Types Based on the Differences in NRS Scores between Admission and Discharge Days, and Duration of Hospitalization

References

1. National Law Information Center. Act on special cases concerning the settlement of traffic accidents.

2. National Police Agency. Statistical report of traffic accident in 2016

3. Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service. Statistical report of medical expenses by car insurance in 2017

4. Kim EG, Cha YY. A study on characteristics of skin resistance variability (SRV) in the traffic accident patients prescribed Dangkisoo-san (Dangguixu-san). Journal of Korean Medicine Rehabilitation 2008;18(3):119–132.

5. The society of Korean Medicine Rehabilitation. Korean Medicine Rehabilitation 3Seoul: Publisher of Gunja; 2011. p. 179p. 204–5. p. 341.

6. Shin JH, Oh MS. The retrospective analysis of 1,162 traffic accident inpatients in Korean medicine hospital. Journal of Korean Medicine Rehabilitation 2013;23(4):233–250.

7. Jo MG, Ahn HM, Na SS. A clinical analysis of Admission Patients in Korean Medicine Hospital due to Traffic Accident. Journal of Medical Gi-Gong 2017;17(1):109–126.

8. Song YI, Jin KS, Shin HL, Yoon IJ, Choi SH, Oh MS. The clinical analysis of traffic accident patients treated by oriental medicine. Journal of Korean Medicine Rehabilitation 2005;15(2):77–89.

9. wall Patrick D, Mozack Ronald. Painology Seoul: Publisher of Jungdam; 2002. p. 483–484.

10. Do HJ, Shin YS, Kim CE, Song HS, Shin JK, Gang BG, Kim ES. Clinical Analysis of 2,048 Musculoskeletal Patients Who Visited the Traffic Accident Clinic of a Korean Medicine Hospital. The Journal of Korea CHUNA Manual Medicine for Spine and Nerves 2016;11:11–23.

11. Park TY, Lee JH, Ko YS, Woo YM, Song YS, Shin BC. The statistical study of 84 traffic accident patients hospitalized in Oriental medical hospital. The Journal of Korea CHUNA Manual Medicine 2005;6(1):31–40.

12. Kim BC, Han EJ, Lee YJ, Lee MJ. The statistics study of admission patients to the oriental medical hospital due to traffic accident. J Korean Med Rehabil 2002;12(1):31–39.

13. Kook KH, Oh MS. The analysis of 509 admission patients in Korean medical hospital due to traffic accident. JORM 2012;22(4):169–183.

14. Yoon IJ, Oh MS, Song JW. Clinical analysis of 112 traffic accident patients. Journal of Korean Medicine Rehabilitation 1998;8(1):317–332.

15. Kim EG, Lee DG, Jeong WJ, Cho HS, Bae JI, Kim SH, Kim KH. The Clinical Study on 500 Cases with Traffic Accident Patients Admitted in Oriental Medical Hospital. Journal of Acupuncture Research 2009;26(5):29–38.

16. Cho SW, Go KH, Nam JH, Kim BH, Lee IS. The Clinical Study on 34 Admission Patients to Oriental Medical Hospital due to Traffic Accident. The Journal of Korea CHUNA Manual Medicine for Spine and Nerves 2006;1(2):101–109.

17. Jeon DH, Lee EJ, Oh MS. The Influential Factors Associated with Hospitalization Period of Patients from Traffic Accident by Groups: A Korean Medicine Hospital Experience, Respective Chart Review. Journal of Korean Medicine Rehabilitation 2016;26(2):133–44.

18. Kang JH, Jang SG, Lee H, Lee BR. The clinical study on 37 cases of whiplash injury patients which caused by traffic accident. Journal of Acupuncture Research 2002;19(3):180–191.

19. Childs JD, Piva SR, Fritz JM. Responsiveness of the numeric pain rating scale in patients with low back pain. Spine 2005;30:1331–4.

20. Farrar JT, Young JP Jr, LaMoreaux L, Werth JL, Poole RM. Clinical importance of changes in chronic pain intensity measured on an 11-point numerical pain rating scale. Pain 2001;94:149–58.

21. Michener LA, Snyder AR, Leggin BG. Responsiveness of the numeric pain rating scale in patients with shoulder pain and the effect of surgical status. Journal of sport rehabilitation 2011;Feb 1. 20(1):115.

22. Jang KJ, Jwa CS, Yi HJ, Jeon HJ, Kim GH. Factors Associated with Post-Concussion Syndrome after Mild Head Injury. Journal of Korean Neurotraumatology Society 2008;4(1):31–36.

23. Shim SY, Park HJ, Lee JM, Lee HS. An overview of pain measurements. Korean Journal of Acupunct 2007;24(2):77–97.

24. White A. Measuring pain. Acupunct Med 1998;16(2):83–7.

25. Jeong SH, Lee HH, Lee GE, Choi JH, Kim D, Lee JH. The Domestic Trends of Korean Medical Treatments for Neck Pain Caused by Whiplash Injury. Journal of Korean Medicine Rehabilitation 2017;27(4):11–19.

26. Shim KB. The determination of risk group and severity by traffic accidents types-Focusing on Seoul City. International journal of highway engineering 2009;

Article information Continued

Table 1

Distribution of Korean Medicine Treatment

Korean Medicine Treatment	No(%)
Acupuncture	346(100%)
Moxibustion	346(100%)
Infralux	346(100%)
Electroacupuncture	345(99.71%)
Cupping therapy	345(99.71%)
Blood-letting cupping therapy	345(99.71%)
Anti-inflammatory and Jungsongouhyul pharmacopuncture	345(99.71%)
ICT(Interferential Current Therapy)	331(95.66%)
Microwave	331(95.66%)
Hot pack	330(95.38%)
Chuna therapy	101(29.19%)

Total	346(100%)

Patients could attend multiple treatments

Table 2

Distribution of Herbal Medication

Herb-med	No(%)
當歸鬚散	77(22.25%)
回首散加減方	53(15.31%)
芍藥甘草湯加味	31(8.96%)
加味溫膽湯	26(7.51%)
安神除痛湯	18(5.20%)
活絡湯加減方	13(3.76%)
半夏白朮天麻湯	12(3.47%)
獨活續斷湯加減方	10(2.89%)
回首散加味	10(2.89%)
淸上蠲痛湯	7(2.02%)
烏藥順氣散加減方	5(1.45%)
平陳健脾湯	5(1.45%)
利腰飮加減	4(1.16%)
淸上湯	4(1.16%)
活絡湯	4(1.16%)
葛根湯	3(0.87%)
安神湯	3(0.87%)
溫下除痛湯	3(0.87%)
雙和湯加減方	3(0.87%)
通中除痛湯	3(0.87%)
桂枝湯	2(0.58%)
當歸鬚散合淸上蠲痛湯	2(0.58%)
順氣除痛湯	2(0.58%)
養胃湯	2(0.58%)
Others	36(10.40%)
None	8(2.31%)

Total	346(100%)

Table 3

Distribution of Visiting to Outpatient Department after Being Discharged from the Hospital

Visit to Outpatient Department after Being Discharged from the hospital	No(%)
Yes	87(25.14%)
No	259(74.86%)

Total	346(100%)

Table 4

Distribution of Chief Complaints in Terms of Pain Based on the Differences in NRS Scores between Admission and Discharge Days

Chief complaints (pain)	No(%)	Admission		Discharge		(Admission)-(Discharge)		p-value
Chief complaints (pain)	No(%)	MD	SD	MD	SD	MD	SD	p-value
Neck pain	286 (82.7%)	5.69	1.32	3.83	1.65	1.87	1.56	0.000*
Low back pain	256 (74.0%)	5.69	1.37	4.11	1.76	1.58	1.45	0.000*
Shoulder pain	218 (63.0%)	5.64	1.31	3.85	1.63	1.79	1.58	0.000*
Thoracic & Abdomen pain	43 (12.4%)	5.84	1.45	3.77	2.02	2.07	1.84	0.000*
Knee pain	41 (11.8%)	5.20	1.23	3.12	2.10	2.07	1.57	0.000*
Lower extremity pain	28 (8.1%)	5.39	1.31	3.61	1.93	1.79	1.81	0.000*
Ankle pain	24 (6.9%)	5.38	1.13	3.63	1.88	1.75	2.09	0.000*
Wrist pain	23 (6.6%)	4.70	1.36	3.22	1.59	1.48	1.81	0.000*
Upper extremity pain	17 (4.9%)	5.77	1.15	3.35	1.69	2.41	1.73	0.000*
Elbow pain	8 (2.3%)	5.38	1.51	3.50	2.39	1.88	1.73	0.018*
Hand pain	3 (0.9%)	5.33	0.58	2.33	2.52	3.00	3.00	0.225
TMJ pain	2 (0.6%)	5.50	2.12	2.50	2.12	3.00	4.24	0.5000

TMJ: Temporo-mandibular joint

Significant mean differences by t-test (p<0.05)

Table 5

Distribution of Chief Complaints in Terms of Systemic Symptoms Induced by Traffic Accidents

Chief Complaints (Systemic Symptoms)	Sex	X	O	(p-value)
Headache	Male	162(82.7%)	34(17.3%)	10.089 (0.002*)
	Female	102(68.0%)	48(32.0%)	10.089 (0.002*)

	Total	264(76.3%)	82(23.7%)

Nausea	Male	175(89.3%)	21(10.7%)	8.217 (0.005*)
	Female	117(78.0%)	33(22.0%)
	Total	292(84.4%)	54(15.6%)

Palpitation	Male	187(95.4%)	9(4.6%)	28.289 (0.000*)
	Female	114(76.0%)	36(24.0%)	28.289 (0.000*)

	Total	301(87.0%)	45(13.0%)

Dizziness	Male	179(91.3%)	17(8.7%)	0.050 (0.848)
	Female	138(92.0%)	12(8.0%)	0.050 (0.848)

	Total	317(91.6%)	29(8.4%)

Significant mean differences by –test (p<0.05)

Table 6

Distribution of Age and sex

Age	Male(%)	Female(%)	Total(%)
10~19	4(1.2%)	4(1.2%)	8(2.3%)
20~29	40(11.6%)	31(9.0%)	71(20.5%)
30~39	38(11.0%)	22(6.4%)	60(17.3%)
40~49	44(12.7%)	40(11.6%)	84(24.3%)
50~59	38(11.0%)	28(8.1%)	66(19.1%)
60~69	27(7.8%)	21(6.1%)	48(13.9%)
70~79	5(1.4%)	4(1.2%)	9(2.6%)

Total	196(56.6%)	150(43.4%)	346(100%)

Table 7

Distribution of Sex Based on the Differences in NRS Scores between Admission and Discharge Days, and Duration of Hospitalization

Sex		No(%)	MD	SD	95% Confidence		t-value or F-value (p-value)

					Min	Max
Treatment Results	M	196(56.98%)	1.77	1.31	−0.24	0.32	0.289 (0.773)
	F	148(43.02%)	1.73	1.30	−0.24	0.32	0.289 (0.773)

	Total	344(100%)	1.75	1.31	1.62	1.90

Duration of Hospitalization	M	196(56.65%)	5.38	3.10	−2.00	−0.59	−3.590 (0.000*)
	F	150(43.35%)	6.67	3.60	−2.02	−0.57	−3.590 (0.000*)

	Total	346(100%)	5.94	3.38	5.58	6.30

Significant mean differences by t-test or ANOVA (p<0.05)

Table 8

Distribution of Age Based on the Differences in NRS Scores between Admission and Discharge Days, and Duration of Hospitalization

Age		Patients number	MD	SD	95% Confidence		t-value or F-value (p-value)

					Min	Max
Treatment Results	10~19	8(2.03%)	2.36	1.09	1.34	3.37	0.589 (0.739)
	20~29	71(20.64%)	1.77	1.32	1.46	2.08
	30~39	60(17.15%)	1.62	1.37	1.26	1.98
	40~49	84(24.42%)	1.75	1.26	1.48	2.03
	50~59	66(19.19%)	1.91	1.32	1.59	2.23
	60~69	48(13.95%)	1.63	1.36	1.23	2.02
	70~79	9(2.62%)	1.67	1.13	0.80	2.54

	Total	344(100%)	1.76	1.31	1.62	1.90

Duration of Hospitalization	10~19	8(2.31%)	5.63	3.02	3.10	8.15	1.892 (0.081)
	20~29	71(20.52%)	5.31	2.94	4.61	6.01
	30~39	60(17.34%)	5.35	3.05	4.56	6.14
	40~49	84(24.28%)	6.10	3.53	5.33	6.86
	50~59	66(19.08%)	6.05	3.42	5.21	6.89
	60~69	48(13.87%)	7.19	3.84	6.07	8.30
	70~79	9(2.60%)	6.22	3.90	3.23	9.22

	Total	346(100%)	5.94	3.38	5.58	6.30

Significant mean differences by t-test or ANOVA (p<0.05)

Table 9

Comparison of Sex and Age by Adjusted Discharge NRS Score

Treatment Results		Patients number	Adjusted Mean	SD	95% Confidence		SS III†	F-value (p-value)

					Min	Max
Sex	M	196(56.98%)	3.73	0.96	3.57	3.88	9.418	7.98 (0.005*)
Sex	F	148(43.02%)	4.07	1.26	3.89	4.25	9.418	7.98 (0.005*)

Age	10~19	8(2.03%)	2.89	1.10	2.08	3.70	18.254	2.597 (0.018*)
	20~29	71(20.64%)	3.70	1.09	3.44	3.95
	30~39	60(17.15%)	3.90	1.09	3.62	4.17
	40~49	84(24.42%)	3.86	1.08	3.63	4.09
	50~59	66(19.19%)	3.81	1.09	3.55	4.08
	60~69	48(13.95%)	4.31	0.16	4.00	4.62
	70~79	9(2.62%)	4.11	0.36	3.40	4.82

^†

SS III: Type III sum of squares

Significant mean differences by ANCOVA (p<0.05)

Table 10

Distribution of Duration of Hospitalization Based on the Differences in NRS Scores between Admission and Discharge Days

Duration of Hospitalization	No(%)	Mean	SD	95% Confidence		F-value (p-value)

				Min	Max
2~4	147(42.73%)	1.06	1.07	0.88	1.23	35.888 (0.000*)
5~7	97(28.20%)	2.02	1.07	1.81	2.24
8~10	64(18.60%)	2.41	1.22	2.11	2.72
11~	36(10.47%)	2.73	1.44	2.25	3.22

Total	344(100%)	1.76	1.31	1.62	1.90

Significant mean differences by ANOVA (p<0.05)

Table 11

Post-Hoc Test by Duration of Hospitalization

Duration of Hospitalization(I)	Duration of Hospitalization(J)	Differences between Duration of Hospitalization (I–J)	p-value	95% Confidence

				Min	Max
2~4	5~7	−.96462*	0.00	−1.38	−0.54
	8~10	−1.35677*	0.00	−1.84	−0.88
	11~	−1.67677*	0.00	−2.27	−1.08

5~7	2~4	.96462*	0.00	0.54	1.38
	8~10	−0.39	0.21	−0.91	0.13
	11~	−.71215*	0.02	−1.34	−0.09

8~10	2~4	1.35677*	0.00	0.88	1.84
	5~7	0.39	0.21	−0.13	0.91
	11~	−0.32	0.61	−0.99	0.35

11~	2~4	1.67677*	0.00	1.08	2.27
	5~7	.71215*	0.02	0.09	1.34
	8~10	0.32	0.61	−0.35	0.99

Significant mean differences by Scheffe tests (p<0.05)

Table 12

Distribution of Interval between Time of Injury and Visit to Korean Medicine Hospital Based on the Differences in NRS Scores between Admission and Discharge Days, and Duration of Hospitalization

Interval between Time of Injury and Visit to Hospital		No(%)	MD	SD	95% Confidence		F-value (p-value)

					Min	Max
Treatment Results	0~1	237(68.90%)	1.80	1.37	1.63	1.98	1.487 (0.218)
	2~3	76(22.09%)	1.51	1.18	1.24	1.78
	4~6	25(7.27%)	1.98	0.98	1.57	2.39
	7~	6(1.74%)	2.19	1.38	0.75	3.64

	Total	344(100%)	1.76	1.31	1.62	1.90

Duration of Hospitalization	0~1	239(69.08%)	6.12	3.65	5.66	6.59	0.959 (0.412)
	2~3	76(21.97%)	5.41	2.92	4.74	6.08
	4~6	25(7.23%)	5.68	1.95	4.87	6.49
	7~	6(1.73%)	6.50	2.07	4.32	8.68

	Total	346(100%)	5.94	3.38	5.58	6.30

Significant mean differences by ANOVA (p<0.05)

Table 13

Distribution of Pathway to Admission Based on the Differences in NRS Scores between Admission and Discharge Days, and Duration of Hospitalization

Pathway to Admission		No(%)	MD	SD	95% Confidence		F-value (p-value)
Pathway to Admission		No(%)	MD	SD	Min	Max	F-value (p-value)
Treatment Results	Directly to the Hospital	198 (57.56%)	1.66	1.35	1.47	1.84	1.458 (0.226)
	Medical Hospital (OPD)	117 (34.01%)	1.85	1.25	1.62	2.08
	Medical Hospital (Admission)	25 (7.27%)	1.99	1.16	1.51	2.47
	Korean Medical Hostpital (OPD)	4 (1.16%)	2.63	1.25	0.64	4.61
	Total	344	1.76	1.31	1.62	1.90
Duration of Hospitalization	Directly to the Hospital	199 (57.51%)	5.45	3.31	4.98	5.91	3.432 (0.017*)
	Medical Hospital (OPD)	118 (34.10%)	6.59	3.53	5.95	7.24
	Medical Hospital (Admission)	25 (7.23%)	6.76	2.83	5.59	7.93
	Korean Medical Hostpital (OPD)	4 (1.16%)	6.00	2.31	2.33	9.67
	Total	346	5.94	3.38	5.58	6.30

OPD: Out Patient Department

Significant mean differences by ANOVA (p<0.05)

Table 14

Comparison of Pathway to Admission by Adjusted Discharge NRS Score

Treatment Results by ANCOVA analysis		No(%)	adjusted Mean	SD	95% Confidence		SS III†	F-value (p-value)
Treatment Results by ANCOVA analysis		No(%)	adjusted Mean	SD	Min	Max	SS III†	F-value (p-value)
Pathway to Admission	Directly to the Hospital	198 (57.56%)	3.89	1.11	3.73	4.04	2.890	0.798 (0.495)
	Medical Hospital (OPD)	117 (34.01%)	3.90	1.11	3.70	4.10
	Medical Hospital (Admission)	25 (7.27%)	3.73	1.10	3.30	4.16
	Korean Medical Hostpital (OPD)	4 (1.16%)	3.13	1.10	2.04	4.21

^†

SS III: Type III sum of squares

OPD: Out Patient Department

Significant mean differences by ANCOVA (p<0.05)

Table 15

Distribution of Vehicle Types Based on the Differences in NRS Scores between Admission and Discharge Days, and Duration of Hospitalization

Types of Vehicle		No(%)	MD	SD	95% Confidence		F-value (p-value)

					Min	Max
Treatment Results	Sedan	248(72.09%)	1.75	1.30	1.59	1.92	0.670 (0.697)
	SUV	43(12.50%)	1.49	1.34	1.08	1.90
	VAN	19(5.52%)	2.04	0.78	1.67	2.42
	Truck	14(4.07%)	1.93	1.71	0.94	2.92
	Pedestrian	8(2.33%)	1.95	1.42	0.76	3.13
	Bus	5(1.45%)	1.67	1.29	0.06	3.27
	Motorbike	5(1.45%)	2.03	1.68	−0.06	4.13
	Bicycle	2(0.58%)	2.83	1.18	−7.76	13.42

	Total	344	1.76	1.31	1.62	1.90

Duration of Hospitalization	Sedan	250(72.25%)	5.72	3.17	5.33	6.11	1.715 (0.104)
	SUV	43(12.43%)	5.86	3.82	4.68	7.04
	VAN	19(5.49%)	6.79	3.95	4.88	8.69
	Truck	14(4.05%)	6.43	4.33	3.93	8.93
	Pedestrian	8(2.31%)	7.75	2.96	5.27	10.23
	Bus	5(1.45%)	9.80	3.03	6.03	13.57
	Motorbike	5(1.45%)	5.60	3.36	1.43	9.77
	Bicycle	2(0.58%)	7.50	6.36	−49.68	64.68

	Total	346	5.94	3.38	5.58	6.30

Significant mean differences by ANOVA (p<0.05)

Table 16

Distribution of Accident Types Based on the Differences in NRS Scores between Admission and Discharge Days, and Duration of Hospitalization

Accident Types		No(%)	MD	SD	95% Confidence		F-value (p-value)

					Min	Max
Treatment Results	Rear-end collision	149(43.31%)	1.73	1.25	1.53	1.93	0.861 (0.570)
	Left lateral collision	50(14.53%)	1.62	1.44	1.21	2.02
	Frontal collision	44(12.79%)	1.57	1.37	1.16	1.99
	Right lateral collsion	42(12.21%)	1.66	1.02	1.34	1.97
	Multiple collsion	40(11.63%)	2.18	1.50	1.70	2.66
	Pedestrian accident	8(2.33%)	1.95	1.42	0.76	3.13
	Motorcycle accident	5(1.45%)	2.03	1.68	−0.06	4.13
	Fall accident	2(0.58%)	1.63	0.88	−6.32	9.57
	Crushing accident	2(0.58%)	2.38	0.53	−2.39	7.14
	Rollover accident	1(0.29%)	3.00	-	-	-
	Sudden stop accident	1(0.29%)	3.00	-	-	-

	Total	344	1.76	1.31	1.62	1.90

Duration of Hospitalization	Rear-end collision	151(43.64%)	5.57	3.37	5.03	6.11	0.979 (0.462)
	Left lateral collision	50(14.45%)	6.02	3.46	5.04	7.00
	Frontal collision	44(12.72%)	5.95	3.43	4.91	7.00
	Right lateral collsion	42(12.14%)	5.69	2.95	4.77	6.61
	Multiple collsion	40(11.56%)	7.03	3.78	5.82	8.23
	Pedestrian accident	8(2.31%)	7.75	2.96	5.27	10.23
	Motorcycle accident	5(1.45%)	5.60	3.36	1.43	9.77
	Fall accident	2(0.58%)	7.50	4.95	−36.97	51.97
	Crushing accident	2(0.58%)	5.50	0.71	−0.85	11.85
	Rollover Accident	1(0.29%)	6.00	-	-	-
	Accident while riding bus	1(0.29%)	9.00	-	-	-

	Total	346	5.94	3.38	5.58	6.30

SUV: Sport Utility Vehicle