| 1. 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 |
| 0.19 [-1.18, 1.56] |
Very Low |
It may result in little to no difference in self-efficacy but the evidence is very uncertain |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
2.0 |
0.19 [-1.18, 1.56] |
Low |
| 2. 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 |
| 0.77 [0.12, 1.42] |
Very low |
It may increase quality of life but the evidence is very uncertain |
2 |
141 |
0.59 [-0.36, 1.53] |
Very low |
3.0 |
0.93 [0.05, 1.82] |
Very low |
| 3. 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 |
| 0.07 [-0.31, 0.46] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in exercise capacity |
3 |
156 |
0.12 [-0.34, 0.58] |
Low |
2.0 |
-0.04 [-0.74, 0.66] |
Low |
| 4. 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 |
| -6.86016597510374 [-18.512863070539435, 9.795020746887971] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on HF-related hospital readmissions but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
0 |
-0.07 [-0.5, 0.35] |
Moderate |
1.0 |
-0.38 [-1.04, 0.28] |
Moderate |
| 5. 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 |
| -0.060869565217389406 [-27.247826086956515, 72.66521739130432] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect in emergency room visits but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
0 |
0.0 [-0.99, 0.98] |
Moderate |
N/A |
N/A |
Moderate |
| 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 |
| 18.622589531680404 [-15.041322314049568, 61.12506887052336] |
Very low |
It may increase mortality but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
0 |
1.161834242728283 [0.9139311852712282, 1.4769807938826427] |
Moderate |
1.0 |
0.7710515858035663 [0.31981902181630395, 1.858928041846342] |
Moderate |
| 7. Hospital admissions / All-cause hospital admissions |
| 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 |
| -19.684259259259253 [-47.703703703703695, 54.243518518518506] |
Very low |
It may increase all cause admission but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
0 |
-0.36 [-1.33, 0.61] |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
| 8. Adherence to medication or other treatment / Adherence to medication |
| 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 |
| 0.41 [0.18, 0.64] |
Very Low |
It may have little to no effect on adherence to medication or other treatment but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
314 |
0.41 [0.18, 0.64] |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
Low |
| 9. 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 |
| 1.28 [0.59, 1.98] |
Very low |
It may increase knowledge but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
98 |
1.28 [0.59, 1.98] |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
| 10. 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 |
| 13.566666666666666 [-17.408333333333324, 59.09166666666665] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect in all-cause hospital readmissions but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
0 |
0.15 [-0.23, 0.54] |
Moderate |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
Footnotes per outcome:
1) 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: 38 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 0 RCT(s) (N=0); 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 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,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: 2 RCT(s) (N=70); 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 2 - 6 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
3) a)We rated down due to 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: 3 RCT(s) (N=80); 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 0 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
4) 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: 1 RCT(s) (N=0); 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 12 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
5) 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: 1 RCT(s) (N=0); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 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.
6) a)We rated down due to very serious imprecision and serious risk of bias; b)Number of studies included in the network: 82 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=0); 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 12 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 and very serious imprecision; b)Number of studies included in the network: 45 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=0); 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.
8) a)We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias, serious imprecision; b)Number of studies included in the network: 8 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=122); 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 9 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
9) a)We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias and very serious risk of bias; b)Number of studies included in the network: 16 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=51); 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.
10) 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: 1 RCT(s) (N=0); 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.
References of studies informing direct evidence:
2) Cowie-2011; Mehralian-2014
3) Cowie-2011, Mcdonald-2002, Mueller-2007
4) Aldamiz-Echevarria Iraurgui-2007
5) Aldamiz-Echevarria Iraurgui-2007
6) Aldamiz-Echevarria Iraurgui-2007
7) Agvall-2013
8) Morrow-2007
9) Mcdonald-2002
10) Aldamiz-Echevarria Iraurgui-2007
|
