1. Hospital admissions / HF-related 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 |
1.738116591928251 [-7.0291479820627885, 15.888004484304954] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect in HF-related hospital admissions but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
0 |
0.08 [-0.41, 0.56] |
Moderate |
1.0 |
0.18 [-3.16, 3.52] |
Moderate |
2. 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 |
3.324999999999993 [-29.309259259259253, 65.96203703703702] |
Very low |
It may increase all cause admission but the evidence is very uncertain |
2 |
0 |
0.09 [-0.59, 0.76] |
Moderate |
1.0 |
-0.49 [-3.09, 2.11] |
Moderate |
3. 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 |
1.35 [0.31, 2.39] |
Very Low |
It may increase self-efficacy but the evidence is very uncertain |
2 |
133 |
1.35 [0.31, 2.39] |
Low |
N/A |
N/A |
Low |
4. 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 |
-32.50358126721759 [-63.03030303030295, 9.640771349862236] |
Very low |
It may decrease mortality but the evidence is very uncertain |
2 |
746 |
0.7788007830714049 [0.559898366565402, 1.0832870676749586] |
Moderate |
1.0 |
0.7117703227626097 [0.17728440996987782, 2.82921701435156] |
Moderate |
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: 33 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 18 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 2) 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: 45 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 2 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 9-18 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, serious imprecision; b)Number of studies included in the network: 38 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 2 RCT(s) (N=67); 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 3-9 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 4) 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: 2 RCT(s) (N=377); 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 9-18 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
References of studies informing direct evidence:
1) Jaarsma-2008 2) Jaarsma-2008, Rodriguez-Gazquez-2012 3) Rodriguez-Gazquez-2012; Zamanzadeh-2013 4) Jaarsma-2008; Rodriguez-Gazquez-2012
|