Defined question
What the comparison examines, the sources selected and the medical boundary.
Medical evidence map specimen
When similar trials answer different questions.
ARRIVE, ASCEND and ASPREE examined daily aspirin for primary prevention in 2018. This fourteen-page map sets their findings beside one another while keeping the differences in populations and outcomes visible. Each trial profile links to its sources.
Public record only · No client involved · Not medical adviceDownload the complete specimen
Read the comparison and check the trial profiles
The complete map includes reported results and their qualifications. Source links let you check them against the original public record.
The research problem
Primary prevention is a category, not a single population or outcome.
The three trials used the same daily aspirin dose and appeared in the same year. They did not enroll the same people or define the same cardiovascular and bleeding outcomes. ARRIVE also recorded a much lower event rate than expected. A useful map preserves those differences before it compares the numbers.
Inside the work
The evidence map, page by page.
Executive map
An overview of the three trials, with limits on how their findings can be compared.
Population and endpoint crosswalk
Eligibility and outcome definitions kept distinct before numbers are compared.
Trial profiles
Individual accounts of trial design and results, including follow-up and the authors’ interpretations.
Currency and limits
Later evidence and guidance, with questions the selected record does not answer.
Linked source ledger
Source identifiers and registration details, with direct links to the records.
The comparison in brief
The comparison at a glance
The abbreviated table below is an orientation, not a substitute for the report or a systematic synthesis.
| Trial | Population | Reported result | Constraint |
|---|---|---|---|
| ARRIVE | 12,546 adults selected for moderate estimated risk. Diabetes excluded. | Primary endpoint 4.29% with aspirin and 4.48% with placebo. HR 0.96. | Observed event rate was much lower than expected, so the intended moderate risk question was not resolved |
| ASCEND | 15,480 adults with diabetes and no evident cardiovascular disease | Serious vascular events 8.5% and 9.6% (rate ratio 0.88). Major bleeding 4.1% and 3.2% (rate ratio 1.29). | Absolute vascular benefit was largely counterbalanced by bleeding hazard |
| ASPREE | 19,114 community dwelling older adults without cardiovascular disease, dementia, or disability | Cardiovascular disease 10.7 and 11.3 per 1000 person years (HR 0.95). Major hemorrhage 8.6 and 6.2 (HR 1.38). | Cardiovascular disease and hemorrhage were prespecified secondary endpoints |
Primary reports
The public record beneath the map.
Read the original reports to examine eligibility and endpoint definitions, alongside the results and their uncertainty. Registries and later sources are linked inside the PDF.
Professional boundary
This demonstrates evidence organization, not clinical judgment.
The specimen is not a systematic review, guideline, diagnosis, or treatment recommendation. It does not tell any person whether to start, continue, or stop aspirin. A clinical or policy decision requires a question specific current review and qualified professional judgment.
Discuss a project
Which studies do you need to compare?
Send the research question and describe the intended use. Atlas can scope a search and evidence table for specialist review, with the limits of that work agreed in advance.
Discuss a project