1. Lipid profile / Total cholesterol |
NMA |
Direct |
Indirect |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
Interpretation of findings |
Number of studies |
Number of patients |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
Number of comparisons informing indirect evidence |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
-55.58 [-85.07, -26.09] |
Very low |
It may decrease total cholesterol (mg/dL) but the evidence is very uncertain |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
NA |
1.0 |
-55.58 [-85.07, -26.09] |
Low |
2. Lipid profile / Triglycerides |
NMA |
Direct |
Indirect |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
Interpretation of findings |
Number of studies |
Number of patients |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
Number of comparisons informing indirect evidence |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
-5.71 [-6.56, -4.85] |
Low |
It may result in a large decrease in triglycerides (mmol/L) |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
NA |
1.0 |
-5.71 [-6.56, -4.85] |
Low |
3. Hypoglycaemia |
NMA |
Direct |
Indirect |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
Interpretation of findings |
Number of studies |
Number of patients |
Relative effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
Number of comparisons informing indirect evidence |
Relative effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
8.45 [-4.18, 33.89] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in hypoglycaemic events |
1 |
666 |
0.15 [-1.73, 2.04] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
4. Self-efficacy |
NMA |
Direct |
Indirect |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
Interpretation of findings |
Number of studies |
Number of patients |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
Number of comparisons informing indirect evidence |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
0.27 [-0.66, 1.2] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in self-efficacy |
1 |
625 |
0.27 [-0.66, 1.2] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
5. Quality of life |
NMA |
Direct |
Indirect |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
Interpretation of findings |
Number of studies |
Number of patients |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
Number of comparisons informing indirect evidence |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
0.0 [-0.77, 0.77] |
Very Low |
It may result in little to no difference in quality of life |
1 |
666 |
0.0 [-0.77, 0.77] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
6. Weight (management) / BMI - Body Mass Index |
NMA |
Direct |
Indirect |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
Interpretation of findings |
Number of studies |
Number of patients |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
Number of comparisons informing indirect evidence |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
-0.87 [-1.95, 0.22] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in body mass index (kg/m²) |
1 |
625 |
-0.37 [-1.68, 0.94] |
Low |
1.0 |
-1.97 [-3.93, -0.02] |
Low |
7. HbA1C / Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) |
NMA |
Direct |
Indirect |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
Interpretation of findings |
Number of studies |
Number of patients |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
Number of comparisons informing indirect evidence |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
-0.29 [-0.75, 0.16] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in HbA1C levels (%) but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
625 |
0.1 [-0.53, 0.73] |
Moderate |
1.0 |
-0.75 [-1.41, -0.08] |
Moderate |
Footnotes per outcome:
1) a) Number of studies included in the network: 176 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 0 RCT(s) (N=0); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 1 comparison(s). The range of follow up was from 1 to 96 months for the studies included in the whole network; b) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious imprecision 2) a) Number of studies included in the network: 171 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 0 RCT(s) (N=0); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 1 comparison(s). The range of follow up was from 1 to 96 months for the studies included in the whole network; b) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias 3) a) We rated down the certainty of the evidence due toserious imprecision and very serious risk of bias; b) Number of studies included in the network: 11 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=666); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 0 comparison(s). The range of follow up was from 1 to 12 months for the studies included in the whole network. The range of follow-up was 1 month in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 4) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision; b) Number of studies included in the network: 55 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=303); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 0 comparison(s). The range of follow up was from 1 to 24 months for the studies included in the whole network. The range of follow-up was 7 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 5) a) Number of studies included in the network: 81 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=327); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 0 comparison(s). The range of follow up was from 1 to 60 months for the studies included in the whole network. The range of follow-up was 1 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.; b) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious imprecision and very serious risk of bias 6) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias; b) Number of studies included in the network: 231 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=303); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 1 comparison(s).The range of follow up was from 1 to 96 months for the studies included in the whole network. The range of follow-up was 7 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 7) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious imprecision, serious incoherence and serious risk of bias; b) Number of studies included in the network: 463 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=303); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 1 comparison(s). The range of follow up was from 1 to 96 months for the studies included in the whole network. The range of follow-up was 7 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
References of studies informing direct evidence:
3) Reaney-2013 4) Reaney-2013 5) Reaney-2013 6) Reaney-2013 7) Reaney-2013
|