| 1. Physical Activity / 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 |
| -0.01 [-0.8, 0.78] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in physical activity |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
3.0 |
-0.01 [-0.8, 0.78] |
Low |
| 2. 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 |
| -0.83 [-2.12, 0.47] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in Body mass index |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
2.0 |
-0.83 [-2.12, 0.47] |
Low |
| 3. Comorbidities managament / 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 |
| -0.19 [-4.82, 4.44] |
Moderate |
It may have little to no effect on systolic pressure but the evidence is very uncertain |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
4.0 |
-0.19 [-4.82, 4.44] |
Very low |
| 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 |
| -0.57 [-2.99, 1.86] |
Moderate |
It likely results in little to no difference on waist size |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
3.0 |
-0.57 [-2.99, 1.86] |
Low |
| 5. Quality of life-Physical and psychological functioning / 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 |
| -0.44 [-1.15, 0.28] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in quality of life |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
4.0 |
-0.44 [-1.15, 0.28] |
Low |
| 6. Comorbidities managament / 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 |
| 0.5 [-2.47, 3.46] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in diastolic pressure |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
4.0 |
0.5 [-2.47, 3.46] |
Very low |
| 7. Healthy nutrition habits/personalized nutrition / 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 |
| -0.45 [-0.89, -0.01] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in dietary habits |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
2.0 |
-0.45 [-0.89, -0.01] |
Low |
| 8. Healthy nutrition habits/personalized nutrition / 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 |
| -0.03 [-0.5, 0.44] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in consumption of fat |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
1.0 |
-0.03 [-0.5, 0.44] |
Low |
| 9. Healthy nutrition habits/personalized nutrition / Fruit and vegetable consumption |
| 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 [-0.03, 0.63] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in Fruit and vegetable consumption |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
1.0 |
0.3 [-0.03, 0.63] |
Low |
| 10. Weight management / Body 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 |
| 0.03 [-0.34, 0.41] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in body fat |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
NA |
2.0 |
0.03 [-0.34, 0.41] |
Low |
| 11. 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 |
| 0.31 [-1.21, 1.83] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on weight but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
309 |
0.03 [-3.8, 3.85] |
Low |
7.0 |
0.36 [-1.3, 2.02] |
Very low |
Footnotes per outcome:
1) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to, very serious imprecision;b) Number of studies included in the network: 329 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 0 RCT(s) (N=0); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 3 comparison(s).
2) a)We rated down the certainty of evidence due to ; b)Number of studies included in the network: 8 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 0 RCT(s) (N=0); 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.
3) a)We rated down the certainty of evidence due to, serious risk of bias;b)Number of studies included in the network: 8 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 0 RCT(s) (N=0); 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.
4) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious risk of bias; b) Number of studies included in the network: 178 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 0 RCT(s) (N=0); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 3 comparison(s).
5) a)We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious risk of bias and serious imprecision; b)Number of studies included in the network: 8 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 0 RCT(s) (N=0); 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 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
6) a)We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious risk of bias, serious imprecision; b)Number of studies included in the network: 112 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 0 RCT(s) (N=0); 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 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 imprecision;b) Number of studies included in the network: 33 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 0 RCT(s) (N=0); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 2 comparison(s).
8) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious risk of bias; b) Number of studies included in the network: 20 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).
9) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious risk of bias and serious imprecision; b) Number of studies included in the network: 15 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).
10) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias; b) Number of studies included in the network: 27 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 0 RCT(s) (N=0); 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 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
11) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious of risk of bias; b) Number of studies included in the network: 329 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=204); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 7 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 4 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
References of studies informing direct evidence:
11) Dhur-2014
|
