ArticleEuropean stroke journal2023
Adjusted horizontal stacked bar graphs ("Grotta bars") for consistent presentation of observational stroke study results.
Article in European stroke journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Proportional Odds or Win Probability as Methods for Assessing Ordinal Outcomes in Infectious Disease Clinical Trials.The Journal of infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Temporal changes in functional outcome and case-fatality after ischaemic stroke and intracerebral haemorrhage in Sweden 2010-2019: an observational study from the Swedish Stroke Register (Riksstroke).European stroke journal · 2026Observational
- Use of Stacked Proportional Bar Graphs ("Grotta Bars") in Observational Neurology Research: A Meta-Research Study.Neurology · 2025Article
- Effects of Mobile Stroke Unit dispatch on blood pressure management and outcomes in patients with intracerebral haematoma: Results from the Berlin_Prehospital Or Usual Care Delivery in acute Stroke (B_PROUD) controlled intervention study.European stroke journal · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores are used to measure functional outcomes after stroke. Researchers create horizontal stacked bar graphs (nicknamed "Grotta bars") to illustrate distributional differences in scores between groups. In well-conducted randomized controlled trials, Grotta bars have a causal interpretation. However, the common practice of exclusively presenting unadjusted Grotta bars in observational studies can be misleading in the presence of confounding. We demonstrated this problem and a possible solution using an empirical comparison of 3-month mRS scores among stroke/TIA patients discharged home versus elsewhere after hospitalization. Patients and methods: Using data from the Berlin-based B-SPATIAL registry, we estimated the probability of being discharged home conditional on prespecified measured confounding factors and generated stabilized inverse probability of treatment (IPT) weights for each patient. We visualized mRS distributions by group with Grotta bars for the IPT-weighted population in which measured confounding was removed. We then used ordinal logistic regression to quantify unadjusted and adjusted associations between being discharged home and the 3-month mRS score. Results: Of 3184 eligible patients, 2537 (79.7%) were discharged home. In the unadjusted analyses, those discharged home had considerably lower mRS compared with patients discharged elsewhere (common odds ratio, cOR = 0.13, 95% CI: 0.11-0.15). After removing measured confounding, we obtained substantially different mRS distributions, visually apparent in the adjusted Grotta bars. No statistically significant association was found after confounding adjustment (cOR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.60-1.12). Discussion and conclusion: The practice of presenting only unadjusted stacked bar graphs for mRS scores together with adjusted effect estimates in observational studies can be misleading. IPT weighting can be implemented to create Grotta bars that account for measured confounding, which are more consistent with the presentation of adjusted results in observational studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.