| 1. Hospital admissions / HF-related hospital readmissions |
| 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 |
| -13.040248962655612 [-32.78547717842327, 37.030290456431565] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on HF-related hospital readmissions but the evidence is very uncertain |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
N/A |
-0.34 [-1.27, 0.59] |
Low |
| 2. Hospital admissions / All-cause hospital readmissions |
| 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 |
| -0.06666666666666855 [-43.708333333333314, 91.62499999999996] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect in all-cause hospital readmissions but the evidence is very uncertain |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
-1.0 |
0.0 [-0.74, 0.74] |
Low |
| 3. Hospital 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 |
| -26.960869565217383 [-40.67391304347825, 53.878260869565196] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect in emergency room visits but the evidence is very uncertain |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
1.0 |
-0.97 [-2.74, 0.81] |
Low |
| 4. 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 |
| 0.56 [-0.19, 1.31] |
Very low |
It may increase knowledge but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
59 |
0.56 [-0.19, 1.31] |
Low |
1.0 |
N/A |
NA |
| 5. Exercise capacity (including effort test) / Exercise capacity |
| 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 [-0.57, 0.86] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect in exercise capacity but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
68 |
0.14 [-0.57, 0.86] |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
| 6. Mortality / All causes of mortality |
| 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 |
| -73.44462809917346 [-112.69531680440758, 16.25895316804405] |
Very low |
It may decrease mortality but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
95 |
0.522045776761016 [0.14370394977770293, 1.9155408290138962] |
Low |
1.0 |
0.46301306831122807 [0.15881742610692068, 1.3634251141321778] |
Low |
| 7. 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 |
| 0.0 [-1.29, 1.28] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in quality of life but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
84 |
0.0 [-1.29, 1.28] |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
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: 30 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).
2) a)We rated down the certainty of evidence due to ,serious risk of bias, very serious imprecision; b)Number of studies included in the network: 39 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 0 RCT(s) (N=0); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: -1 comparison(s).
3) a)We rated down the certainty of evidence due to ,serious risk of bias, very serious imprecision; b)Number of studies included in the network: 20 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 0 RCT(s) (N=0); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 1 comparison(s).
4) a)We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias, very serious risk of bias, and serious imprecision; b)Number of studies included in the network: 16 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=30); 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 8 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
5) a)We rated down due to very serious imprecision and very serious risk of bias, b)Number of studies included in the network: 34 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=36); 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 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
6) a)We rated down due to very serious imprecision; b)Number of studies included in the network: 82 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=48); 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 3 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
7) a)We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias, very serious risk of bias, very 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=44); 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:
4) Stamp-2016
5) Molloy-2006
6) Schwarz-2008
7) Schwarz-2008
|
