1. Number of emergency room visits and 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 |
0.9189 [0.0556, 15.186] |
Low |
It may have little to no effect in emergency room admission |
1 |
71 |
-0.08 [-2.89, 2.72] |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
2. Exacerbation / Exacerbations |
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 |
67.89577080000001 [-2.2013276999999976, 262.65709469999996] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on exacerbations but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
71 |
0.97 [-0.05, 1.99] |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
3. Qualiy of life / Quality of life (specific-disease instruments) |
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 |
-0.14 [-1.37, 1.1] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on quality of life (specific-disease instruments) but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
69 |
-0.14 [-1.37, 1.1] |
Low |
15.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
Footnotes per outcome:
1) We rated down the certainty of the evidence due to very serious risk of bias 2) 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: 15 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=71); 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 3 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, and very 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=34); 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 3 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
References of studies informing direct evidence:
1) Billington-2015 2) Billington-2015 3) Billington-2015
|