1. Experience of care / Care satisfaction |
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 |
1.25 [-0.08, 2.59] |
Very low |
It may increase care satisfaction but the evidence is very uncertain |
2 |
197 |
1.25 [-0.08, 2.59] |
Very low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
2. Physical activity / Steps/day |
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 |
0.1 [-0.31, 0.5] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in steps per day |
1 |
140 |
0.1 [-0.31, 0.5] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
3. 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 |
-0.15 [-3.64, 3.35] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in total cholesterol (mg/dL) but the evidence is very uncertain |
11 |
1101 |
0.21 [-4.56, 4.97] |
Low |
9.0 |
-0.56 [-5.71, 4.58] |
Very low |
4. Self-monitoring / Glucose self-monitoring |
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 |
-0.49 [-1.21, 0.23] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in glucose self-monitoring |
1 |
70 |
-0.11 [-1.16, 0.94] |
Low |
2.0 |
-0.82 [-1.81, 0.16] |
Moderate |
5. Lipid profile / HDL-Cholesterol (mmol) |
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 |
0.02 [-1.12, 1.16] |
Moderate |
It likely results in little to no difference in HDL levels (mmol/L) |
15 |
1512 |
0.91 [-0.46, 2.28] |
Moderate |
10.0 |
-2.0 [-4.06, 0.06] |
Moderate |
6. 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 |
-0.03 [-0.19, 0.12] |
Moderate |
It likely results in little to no difference in triglycerides (mmol/L) |
17 |
1612 |
-0.11 [-0.29, 0.06] |
Moderate |
11.0 |
0.29 [-0.06, 0.65] |
Moderate |
7. Self-management behaviours / Foot care |
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 |
0.01 [-0.5, 0.51] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in foot care self-management but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
70 |
0.01 [-0.5, 0.51] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
8. Physical activity |
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 |
0.33 [0.01, 0.65] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in physical activity |
3 |
294 |
0.48 [0.07, 0.89] |
Very low |
4.0 |
0.1 [-0.4, 0.61] |
Low |
9. 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 |
-0.08 [-0.39, 0.23] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in body mass index (kg/m²) |
18 |
3333 |
-0.29 [-0.65, 0.06] |
Low |
11.0 |
0.69 [0.01, 1.36] |
Low |
10. 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 |
0.22 [-0.37, 0.81] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in self-efficacy but the evidence is very uncertain |
2 |
221 |
0.36 [-0.36, 1.07] |
Very low |
2.0 |
-0.07 [-1.12, 0.97] |
Very low |
11. Lipid profile / LDL-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 |
-0.29 [-1.37, 0.78] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in LDL levels (mg/dL) |
16 |
1614 |
-0.42 [-1.57, 0.73] |
Low |
9.0 |
0.55 [-2.41, 3.52] |
Low |
12. 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 |
0.11 [-0.15, 0.37] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in quality of life but the evidence is very uncertain |
10 |
789 |
0.13 [-0.16, 0.41] |
Very low |
5.0 |
0.02 [-0.6, 0.65] |
Very low |
13. Self-management behaviours |
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 [-1.29, 0.74] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in self-management behaviours |
1 |
118 |
0.5 [-0.74, 1.74] |
Low |
1.0 |
-1.83 [-3.6, -0.07] |
Low |
14. Adherence / Medication (or other treatment) adherence |
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 |
0.13 [-0.52, 0.78] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in adherence |
3 |
220 |
0.24 [-0.5, 0.97] |
Low |
2.0 |
-0.26 [-1.66, 1.14] |
Very low |
15. 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 |
-7.72 [-3.89, 10.57] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in hypoglycaemic events |
2 |
132 |
-0.46 [-1.92, 1.0] |
Low |
1.0 |
0.9 [-1.87, 3.68] |
Low |
16. Knowledge |
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 |
0.38 [-0.06, 0.81] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in knowledge but the evidence is very uncertain |
5 |
366 |
0.52 [0.04, 1.0] |
Very low |
2.0 |
-0.32 [-1.37, 0.73] |
Very low |
17. Dietary habits / Consumption of fat |
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 |
-0.05 [-1.5, 1.4] |
Very low |
It may result in a slight increase in fat consumption |
1 |
69 |
-0.05 [-1.5, 1.4] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
18. Weight (management) / Weight (Kgs/lbs) |
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 |
-0.34 [-1.21, 0.53] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in weight (kgs) |
10 |
2944 |
-0.06 [-1.4, 1.27] |
Low |
10.0 |
-0.54 [-1.68, 0.6] |
Low |
19. Blood-pressure / Systolic pressure |
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 |
-3.48 [-5.29, -1.67] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in systolic blood pressure levels (mmHg) but the evidence is very uncertain |
14 |
3295 |
-5.15 [-7.41, -2.89] |
Very low |
9.0 |
-0.52 [-3.54, 2.5] |
Very low |
20. Weight (management) / Waist size |
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 |
-1.09 [-2.45, 0.26] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in waist size (cm) |
6 |
588 |
-1.23 [-2.61, 0.16] |
Low |
3.0 |
2.3 [-4.72, 9.32] |
Low |
21. Blood-pressure / Diastolic pressure |
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 |
-1.33 [-2.34, -0.31] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in diastolic blood pressure (mmHg) |
12 |
3133 |
-1.91 [-3.19, -0.63] |
Low |
9.0 |
-0.35 [-2.01, 1.32] |
Low |
22. Dietary habits |
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 |
0.51 [0.03, 0.99] |
Very low |
It may result in a slight improvement in dietary habits |
2 |
118 |
0.51 [0.03, 0.99] |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
23. Quality of life / Psychological distress |
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 |
-0.05 [-0.6, 0.5] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in psychological distress but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
48 |
-0.57 [-1.36, 0.22] |
Low |
2.0 |
0.43 [-0.33, 1.19] |
Low |
24. 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 |
-0.39 [-0.49, -0.28] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in HbA1C levels (%) |
31 |
6548 |
-0.39 [-0.53, -0.26] |
Low |
15.0 |
-0.37 [-0.55, -0.18] |
Low |
Footnotes per outcome:
1) a) Number of studies included in the network: 13 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 2 RCT(s) (N=119); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 0 comparison(s) The range of follow up was from 3 to 14 months for the studies included in the whole network. The range of follow-up was 12 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 risk of bias, serious inconsistency and serious imprecision 2) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias; b) Number of studies included in the network: 7 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=62); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 0 comparison(s). The range of follow up was from 3 to 12 months for the studies included in the whole network. The range of follow-up was 12 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 3) a) Number of studies included in the network: 176 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 11 RCT(s) (N=582); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 9 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 3-30 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.; b) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious risk of bias, serious incoherence and to serious inconsistency 4) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias and serious imprecision; b) Number of studies included in the network: 29 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=39); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 2 comparison(s). The range of follow up was from 2 to 24 months for the studies included in the whole network. The range of follow-up was 9 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 5) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious risk of bias; b) Number of studies included in the network: 162 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 15 RCT(s) (N=768); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 10 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 1-30 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 6) a) Number of studies included in the network: 171 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 17 RCT(s) (N=849); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 11 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 3-30 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.; b) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious risk of bias 7) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias and serious imprecision; b) Number of studies included in the network: 26 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=39); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 0 comparison(s). The range of follow up was from 2 to 24 months for the studies included in the whole network. The range of follow-up was 9 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 8) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias, serious inconsistency and serious imprecision; b) Number of studies included in the network: 64 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 3 RCT(s) (N=144); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 4 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 9-12 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 9) 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: 18 RCT(s) (N=1711); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 11 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 3-13 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 10) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias, serious inconsistency and serious imprecision; b) Number of studies included in the network: 55 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 2 RCT(s) (N=135); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 2 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 9-12 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 11) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious risk of bias and serious inconsistency; b) Number of studies included in the network: 171 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 16 RCT(s) (N=837); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 9 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 3-24 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 12) a) Number of studies included in the network: 81 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 10 RCT(s) (N=443); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 5 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 3-12 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 risk of bias and serious inconsistency 13) a) Number of studies included in the network: 40 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=77); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 1 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 6 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 risk of bias, very serious imprecision and serious incoherence 14) a) Number of studies included in the network: 55 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 3 RCT(s) (N=106); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 2 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 3-6 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 15) a) We rated down the certainty of the evidence due to 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: 2 RCT(s)(N=132); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 1 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. 16) a) Number of studies included in the network: 43 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 5 RCT(s) (N=190); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 2 comparison(s). The range of follow up was from 2 to 60 months for the studies included in the whole network. The range of follow-up was 3-13 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 risk of bias, very serious inconsistency and serious imprecision 17) a) Number of studies included in the network: 14 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=34); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 0 comparison(s) The range of follow up was from 2 to 24 months for the studies included in the whole network. The range of follow-up was 12 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 risk of bias very serious imprecision 18) a) Number of studies included in the network: 145 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 10 RCT(s) (N=1486); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 10 comparison(s). The range of follow up was from 1 to 51 months for the studies included in the whole network. The range of follow-up was 3- 24 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.; b) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to.. 19) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious imprecision, very serious risk of bias and serious inconsistency; b) Number of studies included in the network: 233 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 14 RCT(s) (N=1669); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 9 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 3-24 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 20) a) Number of studies included in the network: 81 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 6 RCT(s) (N=317); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 3 comparison(s). The range of follow up was from 1 to 36 months for the studies included in the whole network. The range of follow-up was 3-12 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 risk of bias and very serious risk of bias 21) a) Number of studies included in the network: 211 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 12 RCT(s) (N=1590); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 9 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 3-24 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 risk of bias 22) a) Number of studies included in the network: 30 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 2 RCT(s) (N=74); 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 3-9 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 risk of bias and serious imprecision 23) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious imprecision; b) Number of studies included in the network: 44 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=27); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 2 comparison(s).The range of follow up was from 2 to 24 months for the studies included in the whole network. The range of follow-up was 4 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 24) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious risk of bias and serious inconsistency; b) Number of studies included in the network: 463 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 31 RCT(s) (N=3364); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 15 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 3-30 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
References of studies informing direct evidence:
1) Ali-2012, Malanda-2016 2) Plotnikoff-2013 3) Ali-2012, Aytekin Kanadli-2016, Butt-2016, Chan-2012, Cho-2006, Duran-2010, Fornos-2006, Guo-2014, Johansen-2007, Kempf-2013a, Lim-2011 4) Baron-2017a 5) Ali-2012, Aytekin Kanadli-2016, Brun-2008, Butt-2016, Chan-2012, Cho-2006, Duran-2010, Fonda-2009, Fornos-2006, Johansen-2007, Kempf-2013a, Lim-2011, Mohammadi-2018, Plotnikoff-2010, Plotnikoff-2013 6) Ali-2012, Aytekin Kanadli-2016, Brun-2008, Butt-2016, Chan-2012, Cho-2006, Duran-2010, Fornos-2006, Guo-2014 7) Baron-2017a 8) Baron-2017a, Menard-2007, Plotnikoff-2013 9) Aiello-2015, Ali-2012, Aytekin Kanadli-2016, Brun-2008, Butt-2016, Chan-2012, do Rosario Pinto-2017, Fornos-2006, Guo-2014, Huisman-2009, Kempf-2013a, Lim-2011, Lu-2011, Menard-2007, Mohammadi-2018, Plotnikoff-2010, Plotnikoff-2013, Samtia-2013 10) Baron-2017a, Malanda-2016 11) Ali-2012Aytekin Kanadli-2016Brun-2008Butt-2016Chan-2012Duran-2010Fonda-2009Fornos-2006Guo-2014Johansen-2007Kempf-2013aLim-2011Menard-2007Mohammadi-2018Plotnikoff-2010Plotnikoff-2013 12) Ali-2012, Baron-2017a, Butt-2016, Dunbar-2014, Huisman-2009, Lu-2011, Malanda-2016, MeInard-2007, Plotnikoff-2010, Plotnikoff-2013 13) Guo-2014 14) Aliha-2013, Butt-2016, Kim-2016a 15) Fonda-2009; Wexler-2012 16) Ali-2012, Dunbar-2014, Fornos-2006, Kim-2016a, Menard-2007 17) Menard-2007 18) Brun-2008, Duran-2010, Huisman-2009, Johansen-2007, Kempf-2013a, Lim-2011, Maier-2006, Menard-2007, Mohammadi-2018, Plotnikoff-2010 19) Ali-2012Aytekin Kanadli-2016Baron-2017aBrun-2008Chan-2012do Rosario Pinto-2017Duran-2010Fornos-2006Istepanian-2009Johansen-2007Kempf-2013aMaier-2006Menard-2007Plotnikoff-2010 20) Aytekin Kanadli-2016, Brun-2008, Kempf-2013a, Lu-2011, Mohammadi-2018, Plotnikoff-2010 21) Ali-2012Aytekin Kanadli-2016Baron-2017aChan-2012do Rosario Pinto-2017Duran-2010Fornos-2006Johansen-2007Kempf-2013aMaier-2006Menard-2007Plotnikoff-2010 22) Baron-2017a, Dunbar-2014 23) Plotnikoff-2010 24) Aiello-2015, Ali-2012, Aliha-2013, Aytekin Kanadli-2016, Baron-2017a, Brun-2008, Butt-2016, Cavanaugh-2009, Chan-2012, Cho-2006, do Rosario Pinto-2017, Duran-2010, Ezenwaka-2011, Fonda-2009, Fornos-2006, Guo-2014, Huisman-2009, Johansen-2007, Kan-2017, Kempf-2013a, Lu-2011, Maier-2006, Malanda-2016, Menard-2007, Mohammadi-2018, Nagrebetsky-2013, Plotnikoff-2010, Plotnikoff-2013, Samtia-2013, Wexler-2012, Istepanian-2009
|