1. Long-term complications / Long term complications |
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 |
-43.48 [-69.19, 138.12] |
Very low |
It may decrease long term complications incidence but the evidence is very uncertain |
2 |
191 |
-0.3712 [-1.24604, 0.5179] |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
2. Mortality / Mortality rate |
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 |
-12.0 [-29.0, 10.0] |
Very low |
It may decrease mortality incidence but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
1093 |
0.82 [0.59, 1.14] |
Very low |
N/A |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
3. 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 |
0.46 [0.06, 0.86] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in steps per day but the evidence is very uncertain |
2 |
122 |
0.46 [0.06, 0.86] |
Very low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
4. 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 |
-1.96 [-3.0, -0.93] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in waist size (cm) |
11 |
1714 |
-1.59 [-2.72, -0.46] |
Low |
5.0 |
-3.92 [-6.51, -1.32] |
Low |
5. 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 |
-3.68 [-6.14, -1.22] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in total cholesterol (mg/dL) but the evidence is very uncertain |
20 |
3110 |
-4.88 [-7.91, -1.86] |
Very low |
8.0 |
-1.34 [-5.57, 2.88] |
Very low |
6. 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 |
1.17 [0.04, 2.29] |
Low |
It may result in a large decrease in HDL levels (mmol/L) |
16 |
2378 |
1.62 [0.34, 2.91] |
Low |
4.0 |
-0.35 [-2.69, 2.0] |
Low |
7. 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 |
-3.77 [-5.13, -2.4] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in LDL levels (mg/dL) |
20 |
2906 |
-4.33 [-5.87, -2.79] |
Low |
4.0 |
-1.71 [-4.65, 1.23] |
Low |
8. 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 |
-0.02 [-1.82, 1.78] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in care satisfaction but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
339 |
-0.02 [-1.82, 1.78] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
9. 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 |
0.68 [0.29, 1.07] |
Very low |
It may increase physical activity |
2 |
225 |
0.74 [0.24, 1.24] |
Very low |
2.0 |
0.58 [-0.04, 1.2] |
Very low |
10. 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 |
0.42 [0.09, 0.76] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in quality of life but the evidence is very uncertain |
5 |
1621 |
0.48 [0.1, 0.85] |
Very low |
3.0 |
0.23 [-0.5, 0.95] |
Very low |
11. 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 |
-0.3 [-0.56, -0.04] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in body mass index (kg/m²) |
23 |
3962 |
-0.32 [-0.6, -0.05] |
Low |
5.0 |
-0.16 [-0.85, 0.53] |
Low |
12. 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 |
1.57 [0.75, 2.38] |
Low |
It may result in a large increase in glucose self-monitoring |
1 |
152 |
0.71 [-0.28, 1.71] |
Low |
1.0 |
3.33 [1.9, 4.75] |
Low |
13. 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 |
0.24 [-0.44, 0.92] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in adherence |
4 |
637 |
0.17 [-0.66, 1.0] |
Low |
3.0 |
0.37 [-0.82, 1.56] |
Low |
14. 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 |
-35.49 [-4.78, 2.76] |
Moderate |
It may result in a slight decrease in hypoglycaemic events |
1 |
471 |
-1.2 [-2.83, 0.43] |
Moderate |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
15. 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 |
1.62 [1.21, 2.03] |
Low |
It may result in a large increase in foot care self-management |
1 |
152 |
1.62 [1.21, 2.03] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
16. 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 |
-0.18 [-0.35, 0.0] |
Moderate |
It likely results in little to no difference in triglycerides (mmol/L) |
14 |
2120 |
-0.2 [-0.4, 0.0] |
Moderate |
3.0 |
-0.09 [-0.48, 0.31] |
Moderate |
17. 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 |
-1.55 [-2.26, -0.83] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in weight (kgs) but the evidence is very uncertain |
10 |
2022 |
-1.64 [-2.5, -0.78] |
Very low |
7.0 |
-1.33 [-2.62, -0.03] |
Low |
18. 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 |
-1.62 [-2.36, -0.88] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in diastolic blood pressure (mmHg) |
24 |
3899 |
-1.32 [-2.21, -0.43] |
Low |
7.0 |
-2.33 [-3.69, -0.97] |
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 |
-3.73 [-5.09, -2.37] |
Very low |
It may decrease systolic blood pressure levels (mmHg) but the evidence is very uncertain |
25 |
3975 |
-3.31 [-4.95, -1.67] |
Very low |
7.0 |
-4.66 [-7.1, -2.22] |
Very low |
20. 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 |
0.76 [0.25, 1.27] |
Very low |
It may result in a slight improvement in dietary habits |
1 |
152 |
0.76 [0.25, 1.27] |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
21. 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 |
-0.18 [-0.73, 0.37] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in psychological distress but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
1692 |
-0.18 [-0.73, 0.37] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
22. 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 |
1.3 [-0.01, 2.61] |
Low |
It may result in a large increase in self-management behaviours |
1 |
60 |
1.3 [-0.01, 2.61] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
23. 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 |
-0.46 [-0.57, -0.35] |
Very Low |
It may result in little to no difference in HbA1C levels (%) but the evidence is very uncertain |
34 |
4729 |
-0.5 [-0.63, -0.36] |
Very low |
13.0 |
-0.38 [-0.56, -0.19] |
Very low |
Footnotes per outcome:
1) a)This estimate is a result of a pairwise meta-analysis (2 RCTs, N=191); 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 risk of bias and very serious imprecision 2) a) This estimate is a result of a pairwise meta-analysis (1 RCT, N= 1093); b) We rated down the certainty of the evidence due to very serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision. 3) 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: 7 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 2 RCT(s) (N=65); 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 3 -12 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 4) a) Number of studies included in the network: 81 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 11 RCT(s) (N=828); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 5 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 3-16 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 5) a) Number of studies included in the network: 176 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 20 RCT(s) (N=1600); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 8 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 3-16 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 to serious inconsistency 6) 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: 162 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 16 RCT(s) (N=1160); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 4 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 3-16 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 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: 20 RCT(s) (N=1426); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 4 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 3-96 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 8) a) Number of studies included in the network: 13 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=226); 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 and serious imprecision 9) 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: 2 RCT(s) (N=125); 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 3-12 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 10) a) Number of studies included in the network: 81 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 5 RCT(s) (N=791); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 3 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 1-24 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.; b) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious imprecision, serious risk of bias, and very serious inconsistency 11) 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: 23 RCT(s) (N=2034); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 5 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 2-12 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 12) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias; b) Number of studies included in the network: 29 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=75); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 1 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. 13) a) Number of studies included in the network: 55 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 4 RCT(s) (N=324); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 3 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 6- 12 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.; b) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious imprecision and very serious risk of bias 14) a) We rated down the certainty of the evidence due to 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=471); 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. 15) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias; b) Number of studies included in the network: 26 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=75); 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. 16) a) Number of studies included in the network: 171 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 14 RCT(s) (N=1024); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 3 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 3-16 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 17) a) Number of studies included in the network: 145 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 10 RCT(s) (N=1107); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 7 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- 16 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 18) a) Number of studies included in the network: 211 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 24 RCT(s) (N=2051); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 7 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 2-96 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 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: 25 RCT(s) (N=2090); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 7 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 2-96 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 20) a) Number of studies included in the network: 30 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=75); 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 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 imprecision 21) 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: 44 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=884); 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 24 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 22) a) Number of studies included in the network: 40 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=30); 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 3 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, very 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: 34 RCT(s) (N=2486); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 13 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 1-96 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
References of studies informing direct evidence:
1) Najafi Ghezeljeh-2017, Warren 2018 3) De Greef-2011, Kirk-2009 4) Davis-2010, De Greef-2011, Kim-2006a, Kim-2014, Kirk-2009, Ko-2004, Korcegez-2017, O'Neil-2016, Tudor-Locke-2004, Warren-2018, Webb-2012 5) Al Mazroui-2009, De Greef-2011, French-2008, Huang-2010, Kim-2006a, Kim-2014, Kirk-2009, Ko-2004, Korcegez-2017, Lee-2017, Lim-2011, Mourao-2013, O'Neil-2016, Patnaik-2014, Pedersen-2007, Shao-2017, Tudor-Locke-2004, Van Rooijen-2010, Warren-2018, Webb-2012 6) Al Mazroui-2009, Huang-2010, Kim-2006a, Kim-2014, Kirk-2009, Ko-2004, Korcegez-2017, Lee-2017, Lim-2011, Mourao-2013, O'Neil-2016, Pedersen-2007, Shao-2017, Tudor-Locke-2004, Van Rooijen-2010, Webb-2012 7) Aguiar-2018Al Mazroui-2009Davis-2010Huang-2010Kim-2006aKim-2014Ko-2004Korcegez-2017Krein-2004Lee-2017Lim-2011Mourao-2013Namjoo Nasab-2017O'Neil-2016Pedersen-2007Rachmani-2005Shao-2017Tudor-Locke-2004Van Rooijen-2010Webb-2012 8) French-2008 9) Kim-2006, Korcegez-2017 10) Al Mazroui-2009, Freund-2016, Najafi Ghezeljeh-2017, Rekha-2014, Warren-2018 11) Al Mazroui-2009, Beyazit-2011, Bosi-2013, Davis-2010, De Greef-2011, French-2008, Huang-2010, Kim-2006a, Kim-2014, Kirk-2009, Ko-2004, Korcegez-2017, Lim-2011, Lim-2016, Mourao-2013, Namjoo Nasab-2017, O'Kane-2008, Patnaik-2014, Shao-2017, Van Rooijen-2010, Warren-2018, Webb-2012, Gathu-2018 12) Korcegez-2017 13) Al Mazroui-2009, Korcegez-2017, Planas-2009, Shao-2017 14) Bosi-2013 15) Korcegez-2017 16) Al Mazroui-2009, Huang-2010, Kim-2006a, Kim-2014, Korcegez-2017, Lee-2017, Lim-2011, Mourao-2013, O'Neil-2016, Pedersen-2007, Shao-2017, Tudor-Locke-2004, Van Rooijen-2010, Webb-2012 17) French-2008, Kim-2006a, Kim-2014, Lim-2011, O'Neil-2016, Sperl-Hillen-2011, Tudor-Locke-2004, Warren-2018, Webb-2012, Goudswaard-2004 18) Aguiar-2018Al Mazroui-2009Beyazit-2011Davis-2010Doucette-2009French-2008Huang-2010Kim-2006aKim-2014Kirk-2009Ko-2004Korcegez-2017Krein-2004Lee-2017Mourao-2013O'Neil-2016Pedersen-2007Rachmani-2005Shao-2017Sperl-Hillen-2011Tudor-Locke-2004Warren-2018Webb-2012Gathu-2018 19) Aguiar-2018Al Mazroui-2009Beyazit-2011Davis-2010Doucette-2009French-2008Huang-2010Kim-2006aKim-2014Kirk-2009Ko-2004Korcegez-2017Krein-2004Lee-2017Lim-2016Mourao-2013O'Neil-2016Pedersen-2007Rachmani-2005Shao-2017Sperl-Hillen-2011Tudor-Locke-2004Warren-2018Webb-2012Gathu-2018 20) Korcegez-2017 21) Freund-2016 22) Namjoo Nasab-2017 23) Aguiar-2018, Al Mazroui-2009, Beyazit-2011, Davis-2010, De Greef-2011, Doucette-2009, Goudswaard-2004, Huang-2010, Kim-2006, Kim-2006a, Kim-2014, Kirk-2009, Ko-2004, Korcegez-2017, Krein-2004, Lee-2017, Lim-2016, Magee-2015, Mahwi-2013, Maislos-2004, Mourao-2013, Najafi Ghezeljeh-2017, O'Kane-2008, O'Neil-2016, Pedersen-2007, Rachmani-2005, Shao-2017, Sperl-Hillen-2011, Tudor-Locke-2004, Van Rooijen-2010, Warren-2018, Webb-2012, Gathu-2018
|