| 1. Self-efficacy / Exercise 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 |
| -1.17 [-3.03, 0.68] |
Very low |
It may decrease exercise self-efficacy |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
NA |
1.0 |
-1.17 [-3.03, 0.68] |
Low |
| 2. 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 |
| 1.65 [1.05, 2.26] |
Low |
It may result in a large increase in self-efficacy |
1 |
57 |
1.65 [1.05, 2.26] |
Low |
N/A |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
| 3. 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 |
| 0.26 [-3.64, 4.15] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in waist size |
1 |
57 |
0.57 [-6.82, 7.96] |
Low |
1.0 |
0.13 [-4.46, 4.72] |
Low |
| 4. 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 |
| -1.06 [-1.88, -0.25] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in Body mass index |
2 |
157 |
-0.72 [-1.98, 0.54] |
Low |
7.0 |
-1.31 [-2.38, -0.24] |
Low |
| 5. 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 |
| -3.28 [-5.34, -1.22] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on weight but the evidence is very uncertain |
2 |
157 |
-1.66 [-5.02, 1.7] |
Very low |
7.0 |
-4.25 [-6.85, -1.64] |
Low |
Footnotes per outcome:
1) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious imprecision and serious risk of bias; b) Number of studies included in the network: 16 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 9 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; b)Number of studies included in the network: 12 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=29); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 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.
3) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias; b) Number of studies included in the network: 178 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=29); 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.
4) 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: 2 RCT(s) (N=79); 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 2-6 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 of risk of bias and serious inconsistency; b) Number of studies included in the network: 329 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 2 RCT(s) (N=79); 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 2-6 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
References of studies informing direct evidence:
2) Mirkarimi-2017
3) Mirkarimi-2017
4) Mirkarimi-2015,Mirkarimi-2017
5) Mirkarimi-2015, Mirkarimi-2017
|
