| 1. Healthy nutrition habits/personalized nutrition / Carbohydrates |
| 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 |
| N/A |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in Carbohydrates |
0 |
0 |
N/A |
N/A |
1.0 |
-0.43 [-1.35, 0.48] |
Low |
| 2. 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 |
| -0.07 [-0.8, 0.66] |
Very Low |
It may have little to no effect on Coping with the disease but the evidence is very uncertain |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
1.0 |
-0.07 [-0.8, 0.66] |
Low |
| 3. Quality of life-Physical and psychological functioning / Stress |
| 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 |
| -0.61 [-1.22, 0.0] |
Very low |
It may decrease stress levels but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
44 |
-0.61 [-1.22, 0.0] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
| 4. 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 |
| -0.17 [-0.48, 0.13] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in body fat |
1 |
148 |
-0.2 [-0.63, 0.23] |
Low |
3.0 |
-0.14 [-0.57, 0.29] |
Low |
| 5. 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 |
| -0.58 [-0.92, -0.25] |
Very Low |
It may improve dietary habits but the evidence is very uncertain |
2 |
82 |
-0.48 [-0.98, 0.02] |
Low |
3.0 |
-0.66 [-1.11, -0.21] |
Low |
| 6. 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 |
| 0.35 [-0.12, 0.82] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in physical activity |
3 |
222 |
0.37 [-0.15, 0.9] |
Low |
2.0 |
0.25 [-0.82, 1.33] |
Low |
| 7. Healthy nutrition habits/personalized nutrition / Fiber 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 |
| 0.23 [-0.07, 0.53] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on Fiber consumption but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
139 |
0.23 [-0.11, 0.58] |
Low |
0.0 |
0.24 [-0.37, 0.85] |
Low |
| 8. 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 |
| 0.6 [-0.01, 1.21] |
Very low |
It may result in a slight increase in self-efficacy |
1 |
44 |
0.6 [-0.01, 1.21] |
Low |
N/A |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
| 9. 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 |
| 0.17 [-0.31, 0.65] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in exercise self-efficacy |
2 |
119 |
0.55 [-0.04, 1.13] |
Low |
3.0 |
-0.6 [-1.43, 0.23] |
Low |
| 10. 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 |
| -0.09 [-0.52, 0.34] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on consumption of fat but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
38 |
0.16 [-0.48, 0.8] |
Low |
0.0 |
-0.3 [-0.87, 0.28] |
Low |
| 11. 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 |
| 1824.9 [-1641.41, 5291.21] |
Very low |
It may decrease steps but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
75 |
1824.9 [-1641.41, 5291.21] |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
| 12. Self-efficacy / Eating 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 |
| 0.49 [-1.01, 1.99] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in eating self-efficacy |
1 |
44 |
0.49 [-1.01, 1.99] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
| 13. 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 |
| 0.23 [-0.07, 0.54] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in Fruit and vegetable consumption |
1 |
39 |
0.14 [-0.49, 0.78] |
Low |
0.0 |
0.26 [-0.09, 0.62] |
Low |
| 14. 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 |
| -0.01 [-0.55, 0.53] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in quality of life but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
139 |
-0.01 [-0.55, 0.53] |
Low |
N/A |
NA [NA, NA] |
Low |
| 15. 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 |
| -0.57 [-2.19, 1.05] |
Moderate |
It likely results in little to no difference on diastolic pressure |
7 |
1464 |
-0.83 [-2.59, 0.92] |
Moderate |
5.0 |
0.96 [-3.25, 5.17] |
Low |
| 16. 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 |
| -1.83 [-2.98, -0.68] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in waist size |
10 |
1536 |
-1.4 [-2.73, -0.07] |
Low |
6.0 |
-3.08 [-5.34, -0.82] |
Low |
| 17. 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 |
| -0.94 [-3.35, 1.48] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in systolic pressure |
7 |
1470 |
-1.55 [-4.32, 1.21] |
Low |
6.0 |
1.03 [-3.91, 5.97] |
Low |
| 18. 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 |
| -0.5 [-0.98, -0.01] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in Body mass index |
10 |
1770 |
-0.28 [-0.88, 0.33] |
Low |
8.0 |
-0.91 [-1.73, -0.09] |
Low |
| 19. 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 |
| -2.19 [-3.17, -1.22] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on weight but the evidence is very uncertain |
12 |
1946 |
-1.71 [-3.04, -0.38] |
Very low |
13.0 |
-2.75 [-4.18, -1.33] |
Very 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: 12 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. 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 and very serious imprecision;b) Number of studies included in the network: 14 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).
3) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious imprecision and very serious risk of bias; b) Number of studies included in the network: 7 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=24); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 0 comparison(s). The range of follow up was from 2 to 9 months for the studies included in the whole network. The range of follow-up was 9 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: 27 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=98); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 3 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 Barry-2011 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
5) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious imprecision;b) Number of studies included in the network: 33 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 2 RCT(s) (N=45); 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- 9 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 and serious imprecision;b) Number of studies included in the network: 55 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 3 RCT(s) (N=134); 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 6-12 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 and serious imprecision; b) Number of studies included in the network: 8 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=88); 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.
8) 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: 12 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=24); 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 9 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
9) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious imprecision and very serious risk of bias; b) Number of studies included in the network: 16 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 2 RCT(s) (N=64); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 3 comparison(s). The range of follow up was from 1 to 9 months for the studies included in the whole network. The range of follow-up was 1 -9 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
10) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious incoherence and serious imprecision; b) Number of studies included in the network: 20 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=21); 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.
11) 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: 31 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=40); 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 1 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 and very serious imprecision;b)Number of studies included in the network: 12 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=24); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 0 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 9 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
13) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious imprecision; b) Number of studies included in the network: 15 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=22); 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.
14) 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: 22 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=88); 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 12 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
15) a)We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious risk of bias, serious risk of bias; b)Number of studies included in the network: 112 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 7 RCT(s) (N=818); 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 3-24 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
16) 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: 10 RCT(s) (N=872); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 6 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 3-24 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
17) a)We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias;b)Number of studies included in the network: 122 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 7 RCT(s) (N=824); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 6 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 3-24 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
18) 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: 10 RCT(s) (N=974); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 8 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 3-24 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
19) 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: 12 RCT(s) (N=1081); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 13 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 2-24 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
References of studies informing direct evidence:
3) Berry-2015
4) Barry-2011
5) Berry-2015, Greenlee-2013
6) Berry-2015, Greenlee-2013, Simpson-2015
7) Simpson-2015
8) Berry-2015
9) Berry-2015; Bond-2015
10) Greenlee-2013
11) Bond-2015
12) Berry-2015
13) Greenlee-2013
14) Simpson-2015
15) Azar-2016, Barry-2011, Bennett-2012, Christensen-2013, Iriyama-2014, Rosas-2015, Ross-2012
16) Azar-2016,Barry-2011,Berry-2015,Christensen-2013,Greenlee-2013,Iriyama-2014,Nanchahal-2012,Rosas-2015,Ross-2012,Simpson-2015
17) Azar-2016, Barry-2011, Bennett-2012, Christensen-2013, Iriyama-2014, Rosas-2015, Ross-2012
18) Azar-2016, Barry-2011, Bennett-2012, Berry-2015, Christensen-2013, Iriyama-2014, Nanchahal-2012, Rosas-2015, Ross-2012, Simpson-2015
19) Anton-2011, Azar-2016, Barry-2011, Bennett-2012, Christensen-2013, Greenlee-2013, Iriyama-2014, Nanchahal-2012, Napolitano-2013, Rosas-2015, Ross-2012, Simpson-2015
|
