| 1. 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 |
| -1.5 [-2.73, -0.28] |
Low |
It may result in a large decrease in quality of life |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
16.0 |
-1.5 [-2.73, -0.28] |
Low |
| 2. 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 |
| -3.98 [-8.43, 0.47] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in waist size |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
1.0 |
-3.98 [-8.43, 0.47] |
Low |
| 3. 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 |
| -0.29 [-0.99, 0.41] |
Very Low |
It may result in little to no difference on dietary habits but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
28 |
-0.62 [-1.5, 0.26] |
Low |
1.0 |
0.28 [-0.89, 1.44] |
Low |
| 4. 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 [-2.78, 2.09] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on weight but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
62 |
1.7 [-2.37, 5.77] |
Low |
4.0 |
-1.48 [-4.52, 1.56] |
Low |
| 5. 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 |
| -0.19 [-1.42, 1.03] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on Body mass index |
1 |
62 |
0.63 [-1.01, 2.27] |
Low |
1.0 |
-1.24 [-3.08, 0.61] |
Low |
Footnotes per outcome:
1) 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: 16 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.
2) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious risk of bias, serious imprecision; 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: 1 comparison(s).
3) 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: 33 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=19); 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.
4) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious of risk of bias and serious incoherence; b) Number of studies included in the network: 329 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=38); 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 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 serious incoherence, and serious incoherence; b)Number of studies included in the network: 222 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=38); 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.
References of studies informing direct evidence:
3) Wagner-2016a
4) Ng-2014
5) Ng-2014
|
