| 1. 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 |
| -0.58 [-1.05, -0.11] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in body fat |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
NA |
2.0 |
-0.58 [-1.05, -0.11] |
Low |
| 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 |
| 0.43 [-0.68, 1.55] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in physical activity |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
1.0 |
0.43 [-0.68, 1.55] |
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 |
| -6.45 [-14.27, 1.37] |
Low |
It may result in a slight decrease in systolic pressure |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
2.0 |
-6.45 [-14.27, 1.37] |
Low |
| 4. Quality of life-Physical and psychological functioning / Depression |
| 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 |
| -0.43 [-1.16, 0.3] |
Very Low |
It may have little to no effect on depression but the evidence is very uncertain |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
2.0 |
-0.43 [-1.16, 0.3] |
Low |
| 5. 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 |
| -1.04 [-4.38, 2.3] |
Moderate |
It likely results in little to no difference on waist size |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
3.0 |
-1.04 [-4.38, 2.3] |
Low |
| 6. 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 |
| 0.42 [-0.51, 1.36] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in quality of life but the evidence is very uncertain |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
3.0 |
0.42 [-0.51, 1.36] |
Low |
| 7. 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 |
| -3.12 [-8.06, 1.82] |
Low |
It may result in a slight decrease in diastolic pressure |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
2.0 |
-3.12 [-8.06, 1.82] |
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 |
| 0.8 [0.15, 1.45] |
Very low |
It may result in a slight increase in self-efficacy |
1 |
41 |
0.8 [0.15, 1.45] |
Low |
N/A |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
| 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 |
| -1.03 [-1.97, -0.08] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in Body mass index |
2 |
93 |
-3.79 [-6.37, -1.21] |
Low |
5.0 |
-0.6 [-1.62, 0.42] |
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 |
| 0.19 [-2.11, 2.48] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on weight but the evidence is very uncertain |
3 |
702 |
-1.37 [-4.78, 2.05] |
Very low |
4.0 |
1.47 [-1.63, 4.58] |
Very low |
Footnotes per outcome:
1) 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.
2) 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: 1 comparison(s).
3) 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: 2 comparison(s). The range of follow up was from 1 to 24 months for the studies included in the whole network.
4) a) Number of studies included in the network: 13 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.; b) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious imprecision
5) 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).
6) 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: 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: 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 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, 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: 2 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.
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=25); 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 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: 2 RCT(s) (N=68); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 5 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 9-12 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 of risk of bias, very serious of inconsistency, and serious incoherence; b) Number of studies included in the network: 329 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 3 RCT(s) (N=367); 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 3-12 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
References of studies informing direct evidence:
8) Borkoles-2016
9) Nurkkala-2015,Tzvetanov-2014
10) Borkoles-2016, Nurkkala-2015, Rodriguez-Cristobal-2017
|
