ConductScience.org, home

85,013 comparisons from ClinicalTrials.gov.

85,013 comparisons

Most participants first33,758 with no events in either group come last2,781 to 2,800 of 85,013

Show the results as
ComparisonWith the outcomeRisk difference, 95% intervalParticipantsTrial
Pre-ERCP Group vs Post-ERCP Group: Post-ERCP Pancreatitis47 of 1,297

100 of 1,303

-4.1 points

-5.9 to -2.3

2,600NCT02002650

Rectal Indomethacin to Prevent Post-ERCP Pancreatitis

Pre-ERCP Group vs Post-ERCP Group: serious adverse events15 of 1,297

15 of 1,303

0.0 points

-0.9 to 0.9

2,600NCT02002650

Rectal Indomethacin to Prevent Post-ERCP Pancreatitis

Zinc vs Placebo: Risk of Treatment Failure.267 of 1,300

253 of 1,299

1.1 points

-2.0 to 4.1

2,599NCT00148733

CHIZAP: Community- and Health Facility-Based Intervention With Zinc as Adjuvant Therapy for Childhood Pneumonia

Administration Prolonged After 12 Weeks vs Administration Not Prolonged After 12 Weeks: Risk Factors for the Proportion of Responders - Prolonged Administration After 12 Weeks.39 of 64

1,993 of 2,534

-17.7 points

-30.1 to -6.6

2,598NCT00772941

Drug Use Investigation Of Varenicline (Regulatory Post Marketing Commitment Plan)

Absorb BVS vs XIENCE: Number of Participants With Ischemia Driven TLR (ID-TLR)8 of 1,291

1 of 1,304

0.5 points

0.1 to 1.1

2,595NCT02173379

Absorb IV Randomized Controlled Trial

Absorb BVS vs XIENCE: Number of Participants Experienced Cardiac Death/All MI51 of 1,291

43 of 1,304

0.7 points

-0.8 to 2.1

2,595NCT02173379

Absorb IV Randomized Controlled Trial

Absorb BVS vs XIENCE: Number of Participants Experienced Death/All MI/All Revascularization (DMR)57 of 1,291

46 of 1,304

0.9 points

-0.6 to 2.4

2,595NCT02173379

Absorb IV Randomized Controlled Trial

Absorb BVS vs XIENCE: Number of Participants Experienced All Death/All MI51 of 1,291

43 of 1,304

0.7 points

-0.8 to 2.1

2,595NCT02173379

Absorb IV Randomized Controlled Trial

Absorb BVS vs XIENCE: Number of Participants With Target Lesion Revascularization (TLR)8 of 1,291

1 of 1,304

0.5 points

0.1 to 1.1

2,595NCT02173379

Absorb IV Randomized Controlled Trial

Absorb BVS vs XIENCE: Number of Participants Experienced Cardiac Death/All MI/ID-TLR (Major Adverse Cardiac Events-MACE)57 of 1,291

44 of 1,304

1.0 points

-0.5 to 2.6

2,595NCT02173379

Absorb IV Randomized Controlled Trial

Absorb BVS vs XIENCE: Number of Participants With Target Vessel Revascularization (TVR)3 of 1,291

0 of 1,304

0.2 points

-0.1 to 0.7

2,595NCT02173379

Absorb IV Randomized Controlled Trial

Absorb BVS vs XIENCE: Number of Participants Experienced Cardiac Death/All MI/ID-TLR/ID-TVR, Non TL (Target Vessel Failure, TVF)57 of 1,291

44 of 1,304

1.0 points

-0.5 to 2.6

2,595NCT02173379

Absorb IV Randomized Controlled Trial

Absorb BVS vs XIENCE: Number of Participants With All Coronary Revascularization10 of 1,291

4 of 1,304

0.5 points

-0.1 to 1.1

2,595NCT02173379

Absorb IV Randomized Controlled Trial

Absorb BVS vs XIENCE: Number of Participants With Myocardial Infarction (MI)50 of 1,291

43 of 1,304

0.6 points

-0.9 to 2.0

2,595NCT02173379

Absorb IV Randomized Controlled Trial

Absorb BVS vs XIENCE: Number of Participants With ID-TVR Excluding TLR3 of 1,291

0 of 1,304

0.2 points

-0.1 to 0.7

2,595NCT02173379

Absorb IV Randomized Controlled Trial

Absorb BVS vs XIENCE: Number of Participants Experienced Cardiac Death/TV-MI/ID-TLR (TLF)57 of 1,291

44 of 1,304

1.0 points

-0.5 to 2.6

2,595NCT02173379

Absorb IV Randomized Controlled Trial

Absorb BVS vs XIENCE: Number of Participants With Target Vessel Myocardial Infarction (TV-MI)50 of 1,291

43 of 1,304

0.6 points

-0.9 to 2.0

2,595NCT02173379

Absorb IV Randomized Controlled Trial

Absorb BVS vs XIENCE: Number of Death (Cardiac, Vascular, Non-cardiovascular)1 of 1,291

0 of 1,304

0.1 points

-0.2 to 0.4

2,595NCT02173379

Absorb IV Randomized Controlled Trial

ATP and Shock vs Shock Only: Appropriate Shock96 of 1,302

132 of 1,293

-2.8 points

-5.0 to -0.7

2,595NCT02923726

Assessment of Primary Prevention Patients Receiving An ICD - Systematic Evaluation of ATP

ATP and Shock vs Shock Only: Inappropriate Shock40 of 1,302

62 of 1,293

-1.7 points

-3.3 to -0.2

2,595NCT02923726

Assessment of Primary Prevention Patients Receiving An ICD - Systematic Evaluation of ATP

Request

GET /api/comparisons/v1

Words from a trial's title, conditions or interventions, its outcome or its groups, or an NCT number.

An outcome counted in participants, the serious adverse events, or the deaths from any cause.

No key needed

Code

Show the call in
curl "https://conductscience.org/api/comparisons/v1?page=140"

Response

The first 2 of this page's 20 results. GET /api/comparisons/v1?page=140

{
  "data": {
    "total": 85013,
    "results": [
      {
        "id": "NCT02002650-8a96801e",
        "title": "Pre-ERCP Group vs Post-ERCP Group: Post-ERCP Pancreatitis",
        "summary": "47 of 1297 against 100 of 1303; risk difference -4.1 points, 95% interval -5.9 to -2.3; NCT02002650, Rectal Indomethacin to Prevent Post-ERCP Pancreatitis",
        "record": "/library/comparisons/NCT02002650-8a96801e",
        "nct_id": "NCT02002650",
        "kind": "outcome",
        "participants": 2600,
        "risk_difference": {
          "value": -0.04050849974940694,
          "lower": -0.058570561782453734,
          "upper": -0.022893582829698434
        },
        "group_1": "47 of 1,297",
        "group_2": "100 of 1,303",
        "difference": "-4.1 points",
        "interval": "-5.9 to -2.3",
        "trial_title": "Rectal Indomethacin to Prevent Post-ERCP Pancreatitis"
      },
      {
        "id": "NCT02002650-sae",
        "title": "Pre-ERCP Group vs Post-ERCP Group: serious adverse events",
        "summary": "15 of 1297 against 15 of 1303; risk difference 0.0 points, 95% interval -0.9 to 0.9; NCT02002650, Rectal Indomethacin to Prevent Post-ERCP Pancreatitis",
        "record": "/library/comparisons/NCT02002650-sae",
        "nct_id": "NCT02002650",
        "kind": "serious-adverse-events",
        "participants": 2600,
        "risk_difference": {
          "value": 0.00005325472147484772,
          "lower": -0.00862636943007026,
          "upper": 0.008750823522567418
        },
        "group_1": "15 of 1,297",
        "group_2": "15 of 1,303",
        "difference": "0.0 points",
        "interval": "-0.9 to 0.9",
        "trial_title": "Rectal Indomethacin to Prevent Post-ERCP Pancreatitis"
      }
    ],
    "no_events": 33758,
    "columns": [
      {
        "key": "title",
        "label": "Comparison"
      },
      {
        "key": "group_1",
        "label": "With the outcome",
        "under": "group_2"
      },
      {
        "key": "difference",
        "label": "Risk difference, 95% interval",
        "under": "interval"
      },
      {
        "key": "participants",
        "label": "Participants"
      },
      {
        "key": "nct_id",
        "label": "Trial",
        "under": "trial_title"
      }
    ],
    "order": "Most participants first",
    "kinds": {
      "all": 85013,
      "outcome": 33568,
      "serious-adverse-events": 31897,
      "deaths": 19548
    }
  },
  "release": "trial-comparisons-2026-03-23-0.1.0",
  "terms": [
    {
      "source": "ClinicalTrials.gov's posted results, through CTTI's AACT",
      "license": "ClinicalTrials.gov data via Aggregate Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov (AACT), CTTI. CTTI makes its materials freely available and requests acknowledgement. https://aact.ctti-clinicaltrials.org/documentation/299",
      "notice": "ClinicalTrials.gov's data carry an international copyright outside the United States: https://clinicaltrials.gov/about-site/terms-conditions. The measures are ConductScience's calculation from them.",
      "short": "Freely available. Acknowledgement requested"
    },
    {
      "source": "ClinicalTrials.gov",
      "license": "none stated",
      "notice": "ClinicalTrials.gov's data carry an international copyright outside the United States: https://clinicaltrials.gov/about-site/terms-conditions. The measures are ConductScience's calculation from them.",
      "short": "No license stated"
    }
  ],
  "next": "/api/comparisons/v1?page=141",
  "request_id": "MG9NdcfV4DdxLZAJ"
}

Ask about these results. The first 10 go in the prompt.

About this data
Holds
85,013 comparisons
From ClinicalTrials.gov. Counted 10 Nov 2026.
Release
23 Mar 2026
trial-comparisons-2026-03-23-0.1.0
Checked
20 of 20 review comparisons traced to ClinicalTrials.gov, and all 510,078 numbers calculated again apart from the builder agree
Access
Open
No account. 60 calls a minute from one address.

Sources 2

  • ClinicalTrials.gov's posted results, through CTTI's AACTFreely available. Acknowledgement requested
  • ClinicalTrials.govNo license stated
Each source's terms
  • ClinicalTrials.gov's posted results, through CTTI's AACTClinicalTrials.gov data via Aggregate Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov (AACT), CTTI. CTTI makes its materials freely available and requests acknowledgement. https://aact.ctti-clinicaltrials.org/documentation/299
  • ClinicalTrials.govnone stated

ClinicalTrials.gov's data carry an international copyright outside the United States: https://clinicaltrials.gov/about-site/terms-conditions. The measures are ConductScience's calculation from them.

Genes

NCBI Gene

One gene with its proteins, patents, drugs, trials, grants and papers.

Trials

ClinicalTrials.gov

Search clinical trials by condition, drug, outcome or NCT number, with the results each one posted.

Sequences

Patent publications

Paste a sequence and see the patents that disclose it.

Opens sequences.conductscience.org

For software

Read Trial comparisons from software.

Every answer on this page is also JSON, under /api/comparisons/v1. No key.

GET https://conductscience.org/api/comparisons/v1?q=placebo%20heart%20failure&kind=outcome

Ask an assistant

  • In FOURIER, how did serious adverse events compare between evolocumab and placebo?
  • Which metformin trials reported deaths, and what was the risk difference?
  • What was the number needed to treat for HELIOS-B's composite outcome?
  • Which placebo-controlled heart failure trials had the most participants?