Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report for North Carolina by County

Kidney & Renal Pelvis, 2018-2022

All Races (includes Hispanic), Both Sexes, All Ages

Sorted by Rate

County
sort alphabetically by name ascending 		2023 Rural-Urban Continuum Codes Φ
sort by rural urban descending 		Met Healthy People Objective of ***?
 Age-Adjusted Death Rate †
deaths per 100,000
(95% Confidence Interval)
sort by rate ascending 		CI*Rank ⋔
(95% Confidence Interval)
sort by CI rank descending 		Average Annual Count
sort by count descending 		Recent Trend
 Recent 5-Year Trend ‡ in Death Rates
(95% Confidence Interval)
sort by trend descending
North Carolina N/A *** 3.6 (3.5, 3.8) N/A 473 falling falling trend -1.1 (-2.0, -0.8)
United States N/A *** 3.4 (3.4, 3.5) N/A 14,249 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.6, -1.2)
Onslow County Urban *** 5.9 (4.3, 8.0) 1 (1, 36) 9
*
*
Lenoir County Rural *** 5.8 (3.4, 9.2) 2 (1, 49) 4
*
*
Robeson County Rural *** 5.7 (4.0, 7.8) 3 (1, 39) 8 stable stable trend 0.6 (-0.6, 2.1)
Vance County Rural *** 5.4 (3.1, 9.1) 4 (1, 51) 3
*
*
Edgecombe County Urban *** 5.4 (3.2, 8.6) 5 (1, 50) 4
*
*
Granville County Rural *** 5.3 (3.2, 8.3) 6 (1, 50) 4 stable stable trend -0.1 (-2.0, 2.5)
Duplin County Rural *** 5.2 (3.1, 8.4) 7 (1, 51) 4
*
*
Rutherford County Rural *** 5.2 (3.3, 7.9) 8 (1, 49) 5 stable stable trend 0.1 (-2.1, 2.7)
Craven County Rural *** 5.1 (3.6, 7.2) 9 (1, 45) 7 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.8, 1.2)
Cleveland County Rural *** 5.1 (3.5, 7.2) 10 (1, 45) 7 rising rising trend 1.6 (0.1, 3.7)
Nash County Urban *** 5.0 (3.4, 7.2) 11 (1, 46) 7 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.5, 1.4)
Burke County Urban *** 5.0 (3.5, 7.1) 12 (1, 48) 7 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.3, 1.0)
Halifax County Rural *** 5.0 (3.0, 8.0) 13 (1, 50) 4
*
*
Wayne County Urban *** 4.7 (3.2, 6.7) 14 (1, 47) 7 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.1, 1.3)
Wilson County Rural *** 4.7 (3.0, 7.0) 15 (1, 50) 5 stable stable trend -1.5 (-3.5, 0.5)
Alamance County Urban *** 4.6 (3.4, 6.1) 16 (2, 45) 11 stable stable trend 0.3 (-1.1, 2.1)
Randolph County Urban *** 4.6 (3.3, 6.2) 17 (1, 46) 9
*
*
Franklin County Urban *** 4.4 (2.6, 7.1) 18 (1, 51) 4
*
*
Caldwell County Urban *** 4.4 (2.9, 6.5) 19 (1, 50) 6 stable stable trend -0.5 (-2.4, 1.9)
Davidson County Urban *** 4.4 (3.2, 5.9) 20 (3, 47) 10 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.0, 1.5)
Stokes County Urban *** 4.4 (2.5, 7.4) 21 (1, 51) 3
*
*
Harnett County Rural *** 4.3 (2.9, 6.2) 22 (1, 50) 6 stable stable trend -1.8 (-3.5, 0.2)
Surry County Rural *** 4.2 (2.7, 6.5) 23 (1, 51) 5
*
*
Pender County Urban *** 4.2 (2.4, 7.0) 24 (1, 51) 3
*
*
Haywood County Rural *** 4.2 (2.5, 6.7) 25 (1, 51) 4
*
*
Union County Urban *** 4.1 (3.0, 5.4) 26 (5, 48) 10
*
*
Iredell County Urban *** 4.0 (2.9, 5.5) 27 (3, 49) 9 stable stable trend -0.5 (-2.2, 1.7)
Rockingham County Urban *** 4.0 (2.6, 6.0) 28 (2, 51) 5 stable stable trend -0.3 (-2.2, 1.9)
Lee County Rural *** 4.0 (2.3, 6.5) 29 (1, 51) 3
*
*
Cabarrus County Urban *** 3.9 (2.9, 5.3) 30 (4, 49) 9 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.3, 0.7)
Carteret County Rural *** 3.8 (2.3, 6.1) 31 (2, 51) 5 stable stable trend -1.1 (-3.1, 1.1)
Chatham County Urban *** 3.7 (2.4, 5.8) 32 (3, 51) 5
*
*
Forsyth County Urban *** 3.6 (2.9, 4.5) 33 (12, 48) 17 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.7, 0.7)
Johnston County Urban *** 3.6 (2.5, 4.9) 34 (8, 51) 8 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.3, 1.2)
Guilford County Urban *** 3.5 (2.9, 4.2) 35 (16, 48) 22 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.4, 0.4)
Gaston County Urban *** 3.5 (2.6, 4.6) 36 (11, 50) 10 falling falling trend -1.8 (-3.0, -0.5)
Moore County Urban *** 3.5 (2.4, 5.0) 37 (9, 51) 6 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.4, 1.9)
Brunswick County Urban *** 3.4 (2.4, 4.8) 38 (9, 51) 9
*
*
Lincoln County Urban *** 3.4 (2.1, 5.3) 39 (5, 51) 4
*
*
Rowan County Urban *** 3.3 (2.3, 4.8) 40 (9, 51) 7 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.0, 0.8)
Buncombe County Urban *** 3.3 (2.5, 4.2) 41 (16, 51) 13 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.5, 0.5)
Cumberland County Urban *** 3.3 (2.4, 4.3) 42 (14, 51) 11 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.0, 0.6)
Wilkes County Rural *** 3.2 (1.9, 5.3) 43 (6, 51) 4
*
*
Orange County Urban *** 3.1 (1.9, 4.6) 44 (10, 51) 5 stable stable trend -1.4 (-2.8, 0.4)
Henderson County Urban *** 2.9 (1.9, 4.4) 45 (12, 51) 6 stable stable trend -0.5 (-2.1, 1.5)
New Hanover County Urban *** 2.9 (2.1, 4.0) 46 (20, 51) 9 falling falling trend -2.4 (-4.0, -0.5)
Catawba County Urban *** 2.8 (1.9, 4.0) 47 (18, 51) 7 stable stable trend -1.4 (-3.2, 0.7)
Pitt County Urban *** 2.7 (1.7, 4.0) 48 (17, 51) 5
*
*
Mecklenburg County Urban *** 2.6 (2.2, 3.1) 49 (36, 51) 27 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.8, -1.0)
Wake County Urban *** 2.4 (2.0, 2.9) 50 (39, 51) 26 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.5, -0.1)
Durham County Urban *** 2.3 (1.6, 3.1) 51 (34, 51) 8 stable stable trend -1.7 (-3.6, 0.3)
Alexander County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Alleghany County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Anson County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Ashe County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Avery County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Beaufort County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Bertie County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Bladen County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Camden County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Caswell County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Cherokee County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Chowan County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Clay County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Columbus County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Currituck County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Dare County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Davie County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Gates County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Graham County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Greene County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Hertford County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Hoke County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Hyde County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Jackson County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Jones County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Macon County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Madison County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Martin County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
McDowell County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Mitchell County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Montgomery County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Northampton County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Pamlico County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Pasquotank County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Perquimans County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Person County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Polk County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Richmond County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Sampson County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Scotland County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Stanly County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Swain County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Transylvania County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Tyrrell County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Warren County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Washington County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Watauga County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Yadkin County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Yancey County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 10/22/2024 4:00 pm.

State Cancer Registries may provide more current or more local data.
Trend
Rising when 95% confidence interval of average annual percent change is above 0.
Stable when 95% confidence interval of average annual percent change includes 0.
Falling when 95% confidence interval of average annual percent change is below 0.

† Death data provided by the National Vital Statistics System public use data file. Death rates calculated by the National Cancer Institute using SEER*Stat. Death rates are age-adjusted to the 2000 US standard population (19 age groups: <1, 1-4, 5-9, ... , 80-84, 85+). The Healthy People 2030 goals are based on rates adjusted using different methods but the differences should be minimal. Population counts for denominators are based on Census populations as modified by NCI.
The US Population Data File is used with mortality data.
‡ The Average Annual Percent Change (AAPC) is based on the APCs calculated by Joinpoint. Due to data availability issues, the time period used in the calculation of the joinpoint regression model may differ for selected counties.

⋔ Results presented with the CI*Rank statistics help show the usefulness of ranks. For example, ranks for relatively rare diseases or less populated areas may be essentially meaningless because of their large variability, but ranks for more common diseases in densely populated regions can be very useful. More information about methodology can be found on the CI*Rank website.

*** No Healthy People 2030 Objective for this cancer.
Healthy People 2030 Objectives provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Φ Rural-Urban Continuum Codes provided by the USDA.

* Data has been suppressed to ensure confidentiality and stability of rate estimates. Counts are suppressed if fewer than 16 records were reported in a specific area-sex-race category. If an average count of 3 is shown, the total number of cases for the time period is 16 or more which exceeds suppression threshold (but is rounded to 3).

Please note that the data comes from different sources. Due to different years of data availability, most of the trends are AAPCs based on APCs but some are APCs calculated in SEER*Stat. Please refer to the source for each graph for additional information.

Data for United States does not include Puerto Rico.

When displaying county information, the CI*Rank for the state is not shown because it's not comparable. To see the state CI*Rank please view the statistics at the US By State level.

Return to Top