Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 16, 2025

Design and Analysis for Fall Detection System Simplification
Published on: April 6, 2020
Real-World Pitfalls of Analyzing Real-World Data: A Cautionary Note and Path Forward
John D Cooper1, Karen Shou1, Kevin Sunderland2,3
1Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD.
Purpose:
Real-world data (RWD) are pervasive in oncology research and offer insights into clinical trends and patient outcomes. However, RWD have shortcomings, making them prone to pitfalls during survival analyses. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) CancerLinQ Discovery (CLQD) multiple myeloma (MM) data set was used to demonstrate some common pitfalls when analyzing survival from RWD: using incorrect surrogate markers for missing data and/or classification errors, ignoring deaths at time zero, and failing to account for guarantee-time bias.
Methods:
The ASCO CLQD MM data set (July 19, 2021, release) was used to compare overall survival (OS) in patients with a known versus presumed date of MM diagnosis, in patients with secondary AML (sAML) with early deaths (ie, 0 months) included versus dropped, and in patients with second primary malignancies (SPMs) matched versus unmatched to control for time-related confounding factors (ie, guarantee-time bias). Analyses were conducted using STATA Version 17.0 (College Station, TX).
Results:
In the CLQD MM data set, 28% of patients were missing a diagnosis date. Attempts to use the presumed diagnosis date (ie, first bortezomib or lenalidomide administration) as a surrogate marker for missing diagnosis dates were not successful as median OS was significantly different in patients with a recorded versus presumed diagnosis date (107 v 40 months, hazard ratio [HR], 2.5; 95% CI, 2.39 to 2.64; P < .001). Dropping deaths within 1 month of sAML diagnosis resulted in an exaggerated median OS (46 v 39 months). OS in patients with MM with SPMs differed substantially before and after incorporation of matching methods to account for guarantee-time bias (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.78; P < .001 before matching, HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.18 to 1.43; P < .001 after matching).
Conclusion:
To fully maximize the benefits of RWD in oncology research, clinicians must be aware of analytic methods that can overcome pitfalls in survival analyses.
More Related Videos
11:21Methodology for Establishing a Community-Wide Life Laboratory for Capturing Unobtrusive and Continuous Remote Activity and Health Data
Published on: July 27, 2018
06:02Evaluating Usability Aspects of a Mixed Reality Solution for Immersive Analytics in Industry 4.0 Scenarios
Published on: October 6, 2020
Related Concept Videos
Naturalistic Observations
Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors
Sampling errors originate from improper sampling methods or the wrong sample population. These errors can be minimized by refining the sampling strategy. Defective instruments or faulty calibrations are the sources of instrumental...
Bias in Epidemiological Studies
Statistical Analysis: Overview
One of the most commonly used statistical quantifiers is the mean, which is the ratio between the sum of the numerical values of all results and the...
Regression Toward the Mean
Steps in Outbreak Investigation