1. 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 |
0.27 [-0.93, 1.47] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in knowledge but the evidence is very uncertain |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
NA |
2.0 |
0.27 [-0.93, 1.47] |
Low |
2. Experience of care / Care satisfaction |
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 |
-0.1 [-1.91, 1.71] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in care satisfaction but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
176 |
-0.1 [-1.91, 1.71] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
3. 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 |
0.04 [-0.27, 0.35] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in quality of life |
4 |
464 |
0.0 [-0.43, 0.43] |
Low |
7.0 |
0.08 [-0.35, 0.52] |
Low |
4. Dietary habits / Consumption of fat |
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 |
-0.58 [-2.0, 0.85] |
Very low |
It may result in a slight increase in fat consumption |
1 |
117 |
-0.58 [-2.0, 0.85] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
5. 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 |
-1.83 [-5.11, 1.44] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in total cholesterol (mg/dL) |
9 |
2682 |
-2.79 [-6.75, 1.17] |
Low |
9.0 |
0.23 [-5.59, 6.05] |
Low |
6. Lipid profile / HDL-Cholesterol (mmol) |
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 [-1.45, 1.58] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in HDL levels (mmol/L) |
6 |
2425 |
-1.07 [-3.03, 0.9] |
Low |
7.0 |
1.72 [-0.65, 4.1] |
Low |
7. 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 |
0.19 [-0.22, 0.59] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in psychological distress but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
175 |
0.32 [-0.3, 0.93] |
Low |
4.0 |
0.09 [-0.45, 0.63] |
Low |
8. 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 |
-0.99 [-2.52, 0.54] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in waist size (cm) |
3 |
876 |
-0.67 [-2.3, 0.95] |
Low |
3.0 |
-3.54 [-8.14, 1.06] |
Low |
9. Lipid profile / LDL-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 |
-4.91 [-8.05, -1.76] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in LDL levels (mg/dL) |
3 |
1696 |
-4.0 [-7.69, -0.32] |
Low |
5.0 |
-7.32 [-13.33, -1.3] |
Low |
10. 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 |
-1.96 [-3.03, -0.9] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in weight (kgs) |
5 |
935 |
-1.33 [-2.67, 0.01] |
Low |
7.0 |
-3.05 [-4.81, -1.3] |
Low |
11. Self-monitoring / Glucose self-monitoring |
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 |
1.17 [0.19, 2.14] |
Very low |
It may increase glucose self-monitoring but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
266 |
1.17 [0.19, 2.14] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
12. Self-management behaviours / Foot care |
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 |
1.81 [1.47, 2.14] |
Low |
It may result in a large increase in foot care self-management |
1 |
266 |
1.81 [1.47, 2.14] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
13. Self-management behaviours |
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 |
0.65 [-0.07, 1.36] |
Low |
It may result in a slight increase in self-management behaviours |
3 |
388 |
0.65 [-0.07, 1.36] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
14. Dietary habits |
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 |
0.47 [0.0, 0.93] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in dietary habits |
1 |
266 |
0.47 [0.0, 0.93] |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
15. 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 |
-0.72 [-1.98, 0.55] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in diastolic blood pressure (mmHg) |
8 |
2606 |
-0.77 [-2.16, 0.63] |
Low |
3.0 |
-0.49 [-3.44, 2.46] |
Low |
16. 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 |
-0.21 [-0.42, 0.0] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in triglycerides (mmol/L) |
10 |
2713 |
-0.17 [-0.4, 0.06] |
Low |
4.0 |
-0.44 [-1.01, 0.13] |
Low |
17. Adherence / Medication (or other treatment) adherence |
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 |
0.37 [-0.42, 1.15] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in adherence |
2 |
1307 |
0.11 [-0.72, 0.95] |
Low |
2.0 |
2.35 [0.02, 4.69] |
Low |
18. 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 |
-0.28 [-0.41, -0.14] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in HbA1C levels (%) but the evidence is very uncertain |
20 |
5409 |
-0.13 [-0.3, 0.04] |
Very low |
10.0 |
-0.56 [-0.8, -0.32] |
Very low |
19. 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 |
-0.49 [-2.76, 1.78] |
Low |
It may result in a large decrease in systolic blood pressure levels (mmHg) |
10 |
2790 |
-0.32 [-2.87, 2.24] |
Low |
3.0 |
-1.12 [-6.03, 3.79] |
Low |
20. 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 |
-0.2 [-0.62, 0.21] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in body mass index (kg/m²) |
7 |
2065 |
-0.3 [-0.81, 0.22] |
Low |
5.0 |
-0.02 [-0.74, 0.69] |
Low |
21. 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 |
0.32 [-0.03, 0.66] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in physical activity |
2 |
414 |
0.35 [-0.1, 0.8] |
Very low |
3.0 |
0.27 [-0.27, 0.81] |
Low |
22. Self-efficacy |
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 |
0.53 [-0.2, 1.27] |
Very low |
It may increase self-efficacy but the evidence is very uncertain |
2 |
223 |
0.53 [-0.2, 1.27] |
Very low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
Footnotes per outcome:
1) a) Number of studies included in the network: 43 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 0 RCT(s) (N=0); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: comparison(s). The range of follow up was from 2 to 60 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; b) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious imprecision and serious risk of bias 2) a) Number of studies included in the network: 13 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=102); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 0 comparison(s) The range of follow up was from 3 to 14 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; b) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias and serious imprecision 3) a) Number of studies included in the network: 81 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 4 RCT(s) (N=246); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 7 comparison(s). The range of follow up was from 1 to 60 months for the studies included in the whole network. The range of follow-up was 3-6 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.; b) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to… 4) a) Number of studies included in the network: 14 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=58); 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 12 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 very serious imprecision 5) a) Number of studies included in the network: 176 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 9 RCT(s) (N=1361); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 9 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 6-96 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 6) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias and serious incoherence; b) Number of studies included in the network: 162 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 6 RCT(s) (N=1235); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 7 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 6-96 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 7) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to 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=102); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 4 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 3 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 8) a) Number of studies included in the network: 81 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 3 RCT(s) (N=435); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 3 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 12-36 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 risk of bias 9) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias; b) Number of studies included in the network: 171 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 3 RCT(s) (N=847); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 5 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 12-36 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 10) a) Number of studies included in the network: 145 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 5 RCT(s) (N=470); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 7 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 3-36 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 11) 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: 29 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=134); 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 12 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 12) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias; b) Number of studies included in the network: 26 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=134); 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 12 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 13) a) Number of studies included in the network: 40 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 3 RCT(s) (N=176); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 0 comparison(s) The range of follow up was from 1 to 12 months for the studies included in the whole network. The range of follow-up was 3-9 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 14) a) Number of studies included in the network: 30 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=134); 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.; b) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias and serious imprecision 15) a) Number of studies included in the network: 211 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 8 RCT(s) (N=1327); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 3 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 6-96 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 16) a) Number of studies included in the network: 171 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 10 RCT(s) (N=1395); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 4 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 3- 96 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 17) a) Number of studies included in the network: 55 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 2 RCT(s) (N=625); 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 3-18 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.; b) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious imprecision, serious risk of bias, and serious inconsistency 18) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias and serious inconsistency; b) Number of studies included in the network: 463 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 20 RCT(s) (N=2736); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 10 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 3-96 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 19) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to 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: 10 RCT(s) (N=1422); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 3 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 3-96 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 20) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias; b) Number of studies included in the network: 231 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 7 RCT(s) (N=1053); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 5 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 3-96 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 21) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias, serious inconsistency and serious imprecision; b) Number of studies included in the network: 64 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 2 RCT(s) (N=206); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 3 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. 22) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias, serious inconsistency and serious imprecision; b) Number of studies included in the network: 55 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 2 RCT(s) (N=93); 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 6-9 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
References of studies informing direct evidence:
2) Farmer-2012 3) Farmer-2012, Li-2014, Ruggiero-2010, Welschen-2013 4) Liu-2015 5) Balducci-2017, Christian-2008, Debussche-2012, Li-2014, Liu-2015, Shibayama-2007, Sone-2010, Welschen-2013, Ismail-2018 6) Balducci-2017, Christian-2008, Debussche-2012, Li-2014, Sone-2010, Welschen-2013 7) Farmer-2012 8) Balducci-2017, Christian-2008, Debussche-2012 9) Balducci-2017Christian-2008Pladevall-2015 10) Balducci-2017Bowen-2016Christian-2008Liu-2015Welschen-2013 11) Ruggiero-2014 12) Ruggiero-2014 13) Li-2014, Macedo-2017, Trouilloud-2013 14) Ruggiero-2014 15) Balducci-2017Christian-2008Debussche-2012Liu-2015Shibayama-2007Sone-2010Welschen-2013Ismail-2018 16) Balducci-2017, Christian-2008, Chwastiak-2018, Debussche-2012, Li-2014, Liu-2015, Shibayama-2007, Sone-2010, Welschen-2013, Ismail-2018 17) Farmer-2012, Pladevall-2015 18) Balducci-2017, Bowen-2016, Christian-2008, Chwastiak-2018, Debussche-2012, Farmer-2012, Li-2014, Li-2017b, Liu-2015, Macedo-2017, Pladevall-2015, Ruggiero-2010, Ruggiero-2014, Shibayama-2007, Sone-2010, Trouilloud-2013, Welschen-2013, Willard-Grace-2015, Ismail-2018, Seligman-2018 19) Balducci-2017Christian-2008Chwastiak-2018Debussche-2012Liu-2015Shibayama-2007Sone-2010Welschen-2013Willard-Grace-2015Ismail-2018 20) Chwastiak-2018, Debussche-2012, Liu-2015, Shibayama-2007, Sone-2010, Welschen-2013, Ismail-2018 21) Ruggiero-2014, Welschen-2013 22) Macedo-2017, Ruggiero-2010
|