It may increase quality of life but the evidence is very uncertain
0.6 [-0.68, 1.88]
100% of direct evidence informing the NMA effect
Imprecision: Very serious Incoherence: Not serious
Risk of bias: Very serious Inconsistency: Not serious Indirectness: Not serious Publication bias: Undetected
Footnotes per outcome:
1) a)We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias,serious inconsistency, very serious risk of bias, serious imprecision; b)Number of studies included in the network: 81 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=46); 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:
This platform has been developed as part of the COMPAR-EU project. The COMPAR-EU project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 754936.
Please consider, this is the Beta version of the COMPAR-EU platform. The platform will be expanded and improved in the next months.