1. Hospital admissions / HF-related hospital admissions |
NMA |
Direct |
Indirect |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
Interpretation of findings |
Number of studies |
Number of patients |
Relative effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
Number of comparisons informing indirect evidence |
Relative effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
-9.6895739910314 [-18.612331838565048, 28.832286995515734] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect in HF-related hospital admissions but the evidence is very uncertain |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
1.0 |
-0.61 [-2.07, 0.86] |
Low |
2. Knowledge |
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 [-1.55, 0.57] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in knowledge but the evidence is very uncertain |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
1.0 |
-0.49 [-1.55, 0.57] |
Low |
3. Exercise capacity (including effort test) / Exercise capacity |
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 [-0.63, 0.78] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect in exercise capacity but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
71 |
0.07 [-0.63, 0.78] |
Low |
2.0 |
N/A |
NA |
4. Hospital admissions / All-cause hospital readmissions |
NMA |
Direct |
Indirect |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
Interpretation of findings |
Number of studies |
Number of patients |
Relative effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
Number of comparisons informing indirect evidence |
Relative effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
-29.666666666666654 [-45.37499999999998, -7.466666666666665] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect in all-cause hospital readmissions but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
0 |
-0.42 [-0.78, -0.05] |
Low |
0.0 |
-0.65 [-1.78, 0.48] |
Low |
5. 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 |
0.24 [-0.41, 0.9] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in quality of life but the evidence is very uncertain |
3 |
349 |
0.13 [-0.6, 0.86] |
Very low |
2.0 |
0.69 [-0.77, 2.14] |
Very low |
6. Mortality / All causes of mortality |
NMA |
Direct |
Indirect |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
Interpretation of findings |
Number of studies |
Number of patients |
Relative effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
Number of comparisons informing indirect evidence |
Relative effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
-20.8143250688705 [-90.64903581267207, 141.6606060606059] |
Very low |
It may decrease mortality but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
239 |
0.8521437889662113 [0.36787944117144233, 1.9937155332430823] |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
Footnotes per outcome:
1) a)We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious of bias,very serious imprecision; b)Number of studies included in the network: 33 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). 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: 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 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. 3) a)We rated down due to very serious imprecision and very serious risk of bias, b)Number of studies included in the network: 34 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=34); 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 4 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, serious imprecision; b)Number of studies included in the network: 39 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=0); 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. 5) a)We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias, very serious imprecision; b)Number of studies included in the network: 81 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 3 RCT(s) (N=176); 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 4 -13 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 6) a)We rated down due to very serious imprecision and very serious risk of bias; b)Number of studies included in the network: 82 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=118); 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 13 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
References of studies informing direct evidence:
3) Shively-2005 4) Naylor-2004 5) Dunbar-2015a; Naylor-2004; Shively-2005 6) Naylor-2004
|