| 1. Physical Activity / Total steps |
| 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 |
| 3.92 [-6239.47, 6247.32] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on steps but the evidence is very uncertain |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
1.0 |
3.92 [-6239.47, 6247.32] |
Moderate |
| 2. 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 |
| -0.13 [-1.0, 0.75] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in physical activity |
1 |
69 |
-0.13 [-1.0, 0.75] |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
| 3. 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 |
| 0.08 [-0.46, 0.62] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in body fat |
1 |
69 |
0.08 [-0.46, 0.62] |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
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 |
| 0.12 [-0.23, 0.47] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in self-efficacy |
1 |
110 |
0.18 [-0.2, 0.55] |
Low |
1.0 |
-0.29 [-1.28, 0.71] |
Low |
| 5. Coping with the disease |
| 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 |
| 0.06 [-0.62, 0.74] |
Very Low |
It may have little to no effect on Coping with the disease but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
110 |
0.06 [-0.62, 0.74] |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
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 |
| -0.64 [-3.37, 2.09] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on diastolic pressure but the evidence is very uncertain |
3 |
66 |
-0.86 [-3.88, 2.16] |
Very low |
1.0 |
0.36 [-6.03, 6.74] |
Low |
| 7. 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 |
| -2.22 [-6.63, 2.19] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on systolic pressure but the evidence is very uncertain |
3 |
66 |
-3.24 [-8.06, 1.57] |
Very low |
1.0 |
3.12 [-7.88, 14.13] |
Low |
| 8. 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 |
| -5.04 [-7.83, -2.25] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on waist size |
2 |
61 |
-6.1 [-9.09, -3.11] |
Very low |
1.0 |
2.1 [-5.66, 9.86] |
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 |
| -0.84 [-1.6, -0.08] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in Body mass index |
5 |
240 |
-0.79 [-1.58, 0.0] |
Low |
1.0 |
-1.54 [-4.51, 1.43] |
Low |
| 10. 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 |
| -2.89 [-4.89, -0.88] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on weight but the evidence is very uncertain |
5 |
240 |
-2.93 [-5.02, -0.85] |
Very low |
2.0 |
-2.28 [-9.56, 5.0] |
Low |
Footnotes per outcome:
1) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious risk of bias, and very serious imprecision;b) Number of studies included in the network: 31 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 24 months for the studies included in the whole network.
2) 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=36); 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 2 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
3) 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: 1 RCT(s) (N=36); 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 Arab-2017 months 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; b)Number of studies included in the network: 12 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=59); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 1 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 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
5) 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: 14RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=59); 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 6 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
6) a)We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias, very serious inconsistency, very serious risk of bias, very serious inconsistency, and serious imprecision; b)Number of studies included in the network: 112 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 3 RCT(s) (N=36); 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 3-5 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
7) a)We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias,very serious inconsistency, and serious imprecision;b)Number of studies included in the network: 122 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 3 RCT(s) (N=36); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 1 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 3-5 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, and serious inconsistency; b) Number of studies included in the network: 178 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 2 RCT(s) (N=36); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 1 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 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: 222 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 5 RCT(s) (N=131); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 1 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 2-6 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; b) Number of studies included in the network: 329 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 5 RCT(s) (N=131); 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 2-6 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
References of studies informing direct evidence:
2) Arab-2017
3) Arab-2017
4) Somers-2012
5) Somers-2012
6) Sim-2014, Yamauchi-2014, Derose-2018
7) Sim-2014,Yamauchi-2014,Derose-2018
8) Sim-2014,Yamauchi-2014
9) Arab-2017, Sim-2014, Somers-2012, Yamauchi-2014, Derose-2018
10) Arab-2017, Sim-2014, Somers-2012, Yamauchi-2014, Derose-2018
|
