| 1. Long-term complications / Long term complications |
| 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 |
| -21.24 [-92.9, 3650.46] |
Very low |
It may slightly decrease long term complications incidence but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
61 |
-0.1643 [-0.32694, 2.9409] |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
| 2. Quality of life / Psychological distress |
| 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 |
| 0.13 [-0.61, 0.86] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in psychological distress but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
61 |
0.13 [-0.61, 0.86] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
| 3. 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 |
| -0.24 [-1.0, 0.52] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in physical activity |
1 |
61 |
-0.24 [-1.0, 0.52] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
| 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 |
| -10.0 [-17.35, -2.65] |
Very low |
It may decrease waist size (cm) but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
61 |
-10.0 [-17.35, -2.65] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
| 5. 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 |
| -14.4 [-26.85, -1.95] |
Very low |
It may decrease weight (kgs) but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
61 |
-14.4 [-26.85, -1.95] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
| 6. Lipid profile / Triglycerides |
| 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 |
| -0.6 [-1.63, 0.43] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in triglycerides (mmol/L) |
1 |
61 |
-0.6 [-1.63, 0.43] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
| 7. Lipid profile / Total cholesterol |
| 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 |
| -3.87 [-26.97, 19.24] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in total cholesterol (mg/dL) |
1 |
61 |
-3.87 [-26.97, 19.24] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
| 8. Blood-pressure / 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 |
| -6.0 [-12.26, 0.26] |
Very low |
It may decrease diastolic blood pressure(mmHg) but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
61 |
-6.0 [-12.26, 0.26] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
| 9. Blood-pressure / 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 |
| -5.0 [-15.29, 5.29] |
Very low |
It may increase systolic blood pressure levels (mmHg) but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
61 |
-5.0 [-15.29, 5.29] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
| 10. 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 |
| -2.8 [-8.43, 2.83] |
Very low |
It may decrease body mass index (kg/m²) but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
61 |
-2.8 [-8.43, 2.83] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
| 11. HbA1C / Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) |
| 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 |
| -0.3 [-1.23, 0.63] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in HbA1C levels (%) but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
61 |
-0.3 [-1.23, 0.63] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
Footnotes per outcome:
1) a) This estimate is a result of a pairwise meta-analysis (1 RCT, N=61); The range of follow-up was 24 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care; b) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision
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: 44 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=32); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 0 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 24 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: 64 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=32); 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 24 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
4) a) Number of studies included in the network: 81 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=32); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 0 comparison(s). The range of follow up was from 1 to 36 months for the studies included in the whole network. The range of follow-up was 24 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.; b) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias and serious imprecision
5) a) Number of studies included in the network: 145 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=32); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 0 comparison(s). The range of follow up was from 1 to 51 months for the studies included in the whole network. The range of follow-up was 24 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.; b) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias and serious imprecision
6) a) Number of studies included in the network: 171 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=32); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 0 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 24 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.; b) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias
7) a) Number of studies included in the network: 176 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=32); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 0 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 24 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.; b) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias
8) a) Number of studies included in the network: 211 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=32); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 0 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 24 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.; b) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias and serious imprecision
9) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious imprecision and very serious risk of bias; b) Number of studies included in the network: 233 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=32); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 0 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 24 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 risk of bias and very serious imprecision; b) Number of studies included in the network: 231 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=32); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 0 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 24 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
11) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious imprecision and very serious risk of bias; b) Number of studies included in the network: 463 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=32); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 0 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 24 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
References of studies informing direct evidence:
1) Wisse-2010
2) Wisse-2010
3) Wisse-2010
4) Wisse-2010
5) Wisse-2010
6) Wisse-2010
7) Wisse-2010
8) Wisse-2010
9) Wisse-2010
10) Wisse-2010
11) Wisse-2010
|
