| 1. 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 |
| 269.0 [-3221.74, 3759.74] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on steps but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
50 |
269.0 [-3221.74, 3759.74] |
Moderate |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
| 2. 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 |
| -2.57 [-6.34, 1.21] |
Very low |
It may decrease diastolic pressure but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
112 |
-2.0 [-7.06, 3.06] |
Low |
1.0 |
-3.27 [-8.93, 2.38] |
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 |
| -1.71 [-6.83, 3.41] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in systolic pressure |
2 |
251 |
-2.92 [-8.83, 2.98] |
Low |
1.0 |
1.96 [-8.31, 12.23] |
Low |
| 4. 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 |
| -1.97 [-4.7, 0.76] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in waist size |
2 |
162 |
-1.97 [-4.7, 0.76] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
| 5. 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 |
| -1.7 [-3.45, 0.05] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on Body mass index |
1 |
50 |
-1.7 [-3.45, 0.05] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
| 6. 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 |
| -2.7 [-4.52, -0.88] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on weight but the evidence is very uncertain |
3 |
301 |
-2.71 [-5.35, -0.07] |
Very low |
4.0 |
-2.69 [-5.2, -0.18] |
Low |
Footnotes per outcome:
1) 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: 31 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=33); 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.
2) 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: 112 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=75); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 1 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 2 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 serious imprecision;b)Number of studies included in the network: 122 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 2 RCT(s) (N=142); 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 2-12 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: 178 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 2 RCT(s) (N=108); 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 2-3 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 and serious imprecision, serious imprecision;b)Number of studies included in the network: 222 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=33); 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.
6) 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: 3 RCT(s) (N=175); 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 2-12 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
References of studies informing direct evidence:
1) Cadmus-Bertram-2013
2) Tanaka-2018
3) Lutes-2018b,Tanaka-2018
4) Cadmus-Bertram-2013,Tanaka-2018
5) Cadmus-Bertram-2013
6) Cadmus-Bertram-2013, Lutes-2018b, Tanaka-2018
|
