1. 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 |
-37.14490358126717 [-77.8137741046831, 28.807713498622565] |
Very low |
It may decrease mortality but the evidence is very uncertain |
2 |
622 |
0.8187307530779818 [0.48190899009020244, 1.3909681284637803] |
Low |
2.0 |
0.4360492863215356 [0.1300287108784259, 1.4769807938826427] |
Low |
2. Hospital admissions / All-cause 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 |
1.8277777777777775 [-41.64351851851851, 126.88796296296293] |
Very low |
It may increase all cause admission but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
0 |
0.03 [-1.03, 1.08] |
Low |
1.0 |
N/A |
NA |
3. 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 |
-23.02499999999999 [-41.866666666666646, 4.374999999999998] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect in all-cause hospital readmissions but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
0 |
-0.33 [-0.73, 0.06] |
Low |
0.0 |
-0.23 [-1.43, 0.97] |
Low |
4. Hospital admissions / HF-related 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 |
-15.860995850622423 [-25.3365145228216, -1.9672199170124514] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in HF-related hospital readmissions |
2 |
0 |
-0.36 [-0.76, 0.03] |
Low |
1.0 |
-1.91 [-3.82, 0.0] |
Low |
5. Hospital admissions / Emergency room/department visits |
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 |
63.20434782608693 [-12.230434782608691, 320.75652173913033] |
Very low |
It may increase emergency room visits but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
0 |
0.9 [-0.33, 2.13] |
Low |
N/A |
N/A |
Low |
Footnotes per outcome:
1) 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: 2 RCT(s) (N=309); 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. 2) a)We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias, serious incoherence, very serious imprecision; b)Number of studies included in the network: 45 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 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 12 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, 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 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: 30 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 2 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 1-6 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, very 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=0); 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.
References of studies informing direct evidence:
1) Chen-2018a; Ross-2004 2) Ross-2004 3) Chen-2018a 4) Chen-2018a, Sethares-2004 5) Ross-2004
|