Spatial analysis of hypospadias cases in northern France: taking clinical data into account

BMC Pediatrics

Table 3 Comparison of cantons with regard to ecological data, as a function of presence/absence in each identified high-incidence cluster and after the exclusion of patients with a known potential confounding factor

	Neutral *cantons*	Cluster #1 (*North-West*)	Cluster #2 (*Center-East*)	p
	N = 127	N = 24	N = 19	p
French EDI	0.52 [0.44;0.65]	0.47 [0.42;0.55]	0.69 [0.56;0.73]	0.001
Percentage of artificialized area	0.17 [0.07;0.48]	0.10 [0.04;0.22]	0.53 [0.38;0.64]	< 0.001
Percentage of rural area	0.83 [0.52;0.93]	0.90 [0.78;0.96]	0.47 [0.36;0.62]	< 0.001
Percentage of agricultural area	0.56 [0.23;0.70]	0.85 [0.66;0.92]	0.47 [0.34;0.54]	< 0.001
Distance to CWIP (km)	14.4 [7.92;23.6]	12.8 [8.55;16.3]	4.92 [2.85;9.62]	< 0.001

Note: CWIP closest waste incineration plant, EDI Ecological Deprivation Index. Statistical comparisons were performed using the Kruskal Wallis test. All results are quoted as the median [IQR]

ISSN: 1471-2431