Table 2.

Comparison of study characteristics between LCs and urban patients, MRP

Urban (n = 2196; 82.5%)LC-Near (n = 285; 10.7%)LC-Far (n = 182; 6.8%)P
Sex
    female970 (44.2)123 (43.2)93 (51.1)0.17
    male1226 (55.8)162 (56.8)89 (48.9)
Age, yrs
    17 to 39302 (13.8)23 (9.7)27 (14.8)
    40 to 54494 (22.5)75 (21.9)58 (31.9)
    55 to 69750 (34.2)131 (39.4)75 (41.2)
    70+650 (29.6)56 (29.0)22 (12.1)
    Mean (SD)58.9 (15.6)58.4 (13.5)54.2 (14.1)<0.001
Racea
    Caucasian1457 (68.6)145 (51.4)42 (23.1)<0.001
    Aboriginal492 (23.2)136 (48.2)140 (76.9)
    Other174 (8.2)1 (0.4)0 (0.0)
Primary diagnosis
    TID295 (13.4)28 (9.8)11 (6.0)<0.001
    DN1023 (46.6)183 (64.2)126 (69.2)
    GN561 (25.6)49 (17.2)40 (22.0)
    HTN317 (14.4)25 (8.8)5 (2.8)
Decade
    1990 to 1994472 (21.5)43 (15.1)34 (18.7)0.13
    1995 to 1999725 (33.0)99 (34.7)65 (35.7)
    2000 to 2005999 (45.5)143 (50.2)83 (45.6)
  • Values are given as number of patients, with percentage in parentheses. Age based on ANOVA; all others based on χ2 test of association. TID, tubulointerstitial disease; DN, diabetic nephropathy; GN, nondiabetic glomerular disease; HTN, primary hypertension.

  • a Missing, n = 46.