Home  |  About us  |  Editorial board  |  Ahead of print  | Current issue  |  Archives  |  Submit article  |  Instructions |  Search  |   Subscribe  |  Advertise  |  Contacts  |  Login 
  Users Online: 612Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size  

 Table of Contents      
LETTER TO EDITOR
Year : 2012  |  Volume : 3  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 40

Censoring in survival analysis: Potential for bias


1 Department of Anaesthesiology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Parel, Mumbai - 400 012, India
2 Department of Surgical Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Parel, Mumbai - 400 012, India

Date of Web Publication25-Jan-2012

Correspondence Address:
Priya Ranganathan
Department of Anaesthesiology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Parel, Mumbai - 400 012
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/2229-3485.92307

Rights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Ranganathan P, Pramesh C S. Censoring in survival analysis: Potential for bias. Perspect Clin Res 2012;3:40

How to cite this URL:
Ranganathan P, Pramesh C S. Censoring in survival analysis: Potential for bias. Perspect Clin Res [serial online] 2012 [cited 2022 Jul 6];3:40. Available from: https://www.picronline.org/text.asp?2012/3/1/40/92307

Sir,

We read with interest the article by Singh and Mukhopadhyay [1] on survival analysis. We commend the authors for simplifying a complex topic and for their in-depth explanation of the principles of survival analysis. However, the authors have failed to adequately emphasize one of the most important assumptions of censoring - which is that the censored patients are considered to have survival prospects similar to the participants who continued to be followed. [2]

Censoring in survival analysis should be "non-informative," i.e. participants who drop out of the study should do so due to reasons unrelated to the study. Informative censoring occurs when participants are lost to follow-up due to reasons related to the study, e.g. in a study comparing disease-free survival after two treatments for cancer, the control arm may be ineffective, leading to more recurrences and patients becoming too sick to follow-up. On the other hand, patients on the intervention arm may be completely cured by an effective treatment and may no longer feel the need to follow-up. If these participants are routinely censored, the true treatment effect will not be picked up and the results of the study will be biased. Disease-free survival rates would be based on the patients who continued to be followed-up in the study, and would be overestimated for the control arm and underestimated for the treatment arm.

Several methods have been described to deal with the problem of informative censoring. These include imputation techniques for missing data, sensitivity analyses to mimic best and worst-case scenarios and use of the drop-out event as a study end-point. [3] For unbiased analysis of survival curves, it is essential that censoring due to loss to follow-up should be minimal and truly "non-informative." Failure to understand these aspects of survival analysis could lead to grossly erroneous results from perfectly well-conducted studies.

 
   References Top

1.Singh R, Mukhopadhyay K. Survival analysis in clinical trials: Basics and must-know areas. Perspect Clin Res 2011;2:145-8.  Back to cited text no. 1
  Medknow Journal  
2.Bland JM, Altman D G. Survival probabilities (the Kaplan­Meier method). BMJ 1998;317:1572.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.Shih W. Problems in dealing with missing data and informative censoring in clinical trials. Curr Control Trials Cardiovasc Med 2002;3:4.  Back to cited text no. 3
[PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  



This article has been cited by
1 Kidney Transplantation After Rescue Allocation—the Eurotransplant Experience: A Retrospective Multicenter Outcome Analysis
Volker Assfalg, Gregor Miller, Felix Stocker, Marieke van Meel, Tiny Groenevelt, Ineke Tieken, Donna Ankerst, Lutz Renders, Alexander Novotny, Daniel Hartmann, Alissa Jell, Axel Rahmel, Roger Wahba, Anja Mühlfeld, Antonia Bouts, Dirk Ysebaert, Brigitta Globke, Daniel Jacobs-Tulleneers-Thevissen, László Piros, Dirk Stippel, Katharina Heller, Ute Eisenberger, Steven van Laecke, Rolf Weimer, Alexander R. Rosenkranz, Stefan Berger, Lutz Fischer, Volker Kliem, Florian Vondran, Urban Sester, Stefan Schneeberger, Ana Harth, Dirk Kuypers, Reinhold Függer, Miha Arnol, Maarten Christiaans, Julia Weinmann-Menke, Bernd Krüger, Luuk Hilbrands, Bernhard Banas, Oliver Hakenberg, Robert Minnee, Vedat Schwenger, Nils Heyne, Arjan van Zuilen, Roman Reindl-Schwaighofer, Kai Lopau, Norbert Hu¨ser, Uwe Heemann
Transplantation. 2022; 106(6): 1215
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
2 Association of ICU Admission and Outcomes in Sepsis and Acute Respiratory Failure
George L. Anesi, Vincent X. Liu, Marzana Chowdhury, Dylan S. Small, Wei Wang, M. Kit Delgado, Brian Bayes, Erich Dress, Gabriel J. Escobar, Scott D. Halpern
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. 2022; 205(5): 520
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
3 Do Group Memberships Online Protect Addicts in Recovery Against Relapse?
Elahe Naserianhanzaei,Miriam Koschate-Reis
Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction. 2021; 5(CSCW1): 1
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
4 Quantifying Withdrawal of Consent, Loss to Follow-Up, Early Drug Discontinuation, and Censoring in Oncology Trials
Brooke E. Wilson, Michelle B. Nadler, Alexandra Desnoyers, Eitan Amir
Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. 2021; 19(12): 1433
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
5 The frequency of assessment of progression in randomized oncology clinical trials
Alyson Haslam, Jennifer Gill, Vinay Prasad
Cancer Reports. 2021;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
6 Informative censoring — a neglected cause of bias in oncology trials
Arnoud J. Templeton,Eitan Amir,Ian F. Tannock
Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology. 2020;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
7 Repeated kidney re-transplantation—the Eurotransplant experience: a retrospective multicenter outcome analysis
Volker Assfalg,Katharina Selig,Johanna Tolksdorf,Marieke Meel,Erwin Vries,Anne-Marie Ramsoebhag,Axel Rahmel,Lutz Renders,Alexander Novotny,Edouard Matevossian,Stefan Schneeberger,Alexander R. Rosenkranz,Gabriela Berlakovich,Dirk Ysebaert,Noël Knops,Dirk Kuypers,Laurent Weekers,Anja Muehlfeld,Lars-Christian Rump,Ingeborg Hauser,Przemyslaw Pisarski,Rolf Weimer,Paolo Fornara,Lutz Fischer,Volker Kliem,Urban Sester,Dirk Stippel,Wolfgang Arns,Hans-Michael Hau,Martin Nitschke,Joachim Hoyer,Stefan Thorban,Julia Weinmann-Menke,Katharina Heller,Bernhard Banas,Vedat Schwenger,Silvio Nadalin,Kai Lopau,Norbert Hüser,Uwe Heemann
Transplant International. 2020;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
8 Association of an Emergency Department–embedded Critical Care Unit with Hospital Outcomes and Intensive Care Unit Use
George L. Anesi,Jayaram Chelluri,Zaffer A. Qasim,Marzana Chowdhury,Rachel Kohn,Gary E. Weissman,Brian Bayes,M. Kit Delgado,Benjamin S. Abella,Scott D. Halpern,John C. Greenwood
Annals of the American Thoracic Society. 2020; 17(12): 1599
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
9 Association of a Novel Index of Hospital Capacity Strain with Admission to Intensive Care Units
George L. Anesi,Marzana Chowdhury,Dylan S. Small,M. Kit Delgado,Rachel Kohn,Brian Bayes,Wei Wang,Erich Dress,Gabriel J. Escobar,Scott D. Halpern,Vincent X. Liu
Annals of the American Thoracic Society. 2020; 17(11): 1440
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
10 Performance of methods to conduct mediation analysis with time-to-event outcomes
Lizbeth Burgos Ochoa,Judith J.M. Rijnhart,Brenda W. Penninx,Klaas J. Wardenaar,Jos W.R. Twisk,Martijn W. Heymans
Statistica Neerlandica. 2019;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
11 Using incidental mark-encounter data to improve survival estimation
Seth M. Harju,Scott M. Cambrin,Roy C. Averill-Murray,Melia Nafus,Kimberleigh J. Field,Linda J. Allison
Ecology and Evolution. 2019;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
12 The effect of bariatric surgery on health care costs: A synthetic control approach using Bayesian structural time series
Christoph F. Kurz,Martin Rehm,Rolf Holle,Christina Teuner,Michael Laxy,Larissa Schwarzkopf
Health Economics. 2019;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
13 Local Recurrence After Microwave Ablation of Lung Malignancies: A Systematic Review
David B. Nelson,Alda L. Tam,Kyle G. Mitchell,David C. Rice,Reza J. Mehran,Boris Sepesi,Mara B. Antonoff,Ara A. Vaporciyan,Wayne L. Hofstetter
The Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 2018;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
14 Predictors of injecting cessation among a cohort of people who inject drugs in Tijuana, Mexico
Danielle Horyniak,Steffanie A. Strathdee,Brooke S. West,Meredith Meacham,Gudelia Rangel,Tommi L. Gaines
Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2018; 185: 298
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
15 Assessing the degree of residual confounding: a cohort study on the association between disability pension and mortality
Daniel Olsson,Kristina Alexanderson,Matteo Bottai
European Journal of Public Health. 2018;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
16 Time-varying effects of prognostic factors associated with long-term survival in breast cancer
Minlu Zhang,Peng Peng,Kai Gu,Hui Cai,Guoyou Qin,Xiao Ou Shu,Pingping Bao
Endocrine-Related Cancer. 2018; 25(5): 509
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
17 Using a Counting Process Method to Impute Censored Follow-Up Time Data
Jimmy Efird,Charulata Jindal
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2018; 15(4): 690
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
18 Prognostic value of routine laboratory variables in prediction of breast cancer recurrence
Zhu Zhu,Ling Li,Zhong Ye,Tong Fu,Ye Du,Aiping Shi,Di Wu,Ke Li,Yifan Zhu,Chun Wang,Zhimin Fan
Scientific Reports. 2017; 7(1)
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
19 Differential losses to follow-up that are outcome-dependent can vitiate a clinical trial: Simulation results
Richard F. Potthoff
Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics. 2017;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
20 Fifth Ovarian Cancer Consensus Conference of the Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup: first-line interventions
A. Karam,J. A. Ledermann,J.-W. Kim,J. Sehouli,K. Lu,C. Gourley,N. Katsumata,R. A. Burger,B.-H. Nam,M. Bacon,C. Ng,J. Pfisterer,R. L. M. Bekkers,A. Casado Herráez,A. Redondo,H. Fujiwara,N. Gleeson,O. Rosengarten,G. Scambia,J. Zhu,A. Okamoto,G. Stuart,K. Ochiai
Annals of Oncology. 2017; 28(4): 711
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
21 The value of Chinese patents: An empirical investigation of citation lags
Christian Fisch,Philipp Sandner,Lukas Regner
China Economic Review. 2017; 45: 22
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
22 Adherence to Antiretroviral Therapy During and After Pregnancy: Cohort Study on Women Receiving Care in Malawiæs Option B+ Program
Andreas D. Haas,Malango T. Msukwa,Matthias Egger,Lyson Tenthani,Hannock Tweya,Andreas Jahn,Oliver J. Gadabu,Kali Tal,Luisa Salazar-Vizcaya,Janne Estill,Adrian Spoerri,Nozgechi Phiri,Frank Chimbwandira,Joep J. van Oosterhout,Olivia Keiser
Clinical Infectious Diseases. 2016; : ciw500
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
23 Short-term cessation of sex work and injection drug use: Evidence from a recurrent event survival analysis
Tommi L. Gaines,Lianne A. Urada,Gustavo Martinez,Shira M. Goldenberg,Gudelia Rangel,Elizabeth Reed,Thomas L. Patterson,Steffanie A. Strathdee
Addictive Behaviors. 2015; 45: 63
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
24 A new comparison of nested case–control and case–cohort designs and methods
Ryung S. Kim
European Journal of Epidemiology. 2014;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
25 Simulation studies on the estimation of total area under the curve in the presence of right-tailed censoring
Peter L. Bonate
Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics. 2014;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
26 Comparison of Success Rates Using Video Laryngoscopy Versus Direct Laryngoscopy by Residents During a Simulated Pediatric Emergency
Michael J. Sylvia,Louise Maranda,Kathryn L. Harris,Jennifer Thompson,Barbara M. Walsh
Simulation in Healthcare: The Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare. 2013; 8(3): 155
[Pubmed] | [DOI]



 

Top
  
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
    References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed11515    
    Printed151    
    Emailed2    
    PDF Downloaded1701    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 26    

Recommend this journal