| 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 |
| 0.025560538116593878 [-7.940807174887902, 12.746188340807192] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect in HF-related hospital admissions but the evidence is very uncertain |
2 |
0 |
0.0 [-0.47, 0.47] |
Moderate |
1.0 |
N/A |
NA |
| 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 |
| -2.6768518518518514 [-32.62129629629629, 55.124999999999986] |
Very low |
It may increase all cause admission but the evidence is very uncertain |
2 |
0 |
-0.06 [-0.74, 0.62] |
Moderate |
1.0 |
0.2 [-2.36, 2.76] |
Moderate |
| 3. 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 |
| -6.258333333333327 [-35.70833333333332, 41.40833333333331] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in all-cause hospital readmissions |
1 |
0 |
-0.08 [-0.56, 0.4] |
Moderate |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
| 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 |
| -19.095316804407688 [-50.36694214876028, 22.719559228650123] |
Very low |
It may decrease mortality but the evidence is very uncertain |
3 |
949 |
0.8607079764250578 [0.6440364210831414, 1.161834242728283] |
Moderate |
1.0 |
1.1853048513203654 [0.05393368730035602, 26.311339343265892] |
Moderate |
| 5. 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 |
| 1.56 [0.65, 2.47] |
Low |
It may result in a large increase in quality of life |
1 |
41 |
2.85 [1.34, 4.35] |
Moderate |
2.0 |
0.83 [-0.32, 1.97] |
Low |
| 6. 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 |
| -25.327385892116205 [-35.706639004149416, -4.112448132780085] |
Moderate |
It likely results in a slight decrease in HF-related hospital readmissions |
1 |
0 |
-0.81 [-1.52, -0.09] |
Moderate |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
| 7. 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 |
| -36.95652173913042 [-43.182608695652156, 101.43043478260866] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect in emergency room visits but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
0 |
-1.9 [-5.0, 1.2] |
Moderate |
N/A |
N/A |
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: 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 3-18 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, 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 6-18 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
3) a)We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious risk of bias, 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.
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: 3 RCT(s) (N=473); 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 6-18 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
5) a)We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias, 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=20); 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.
6) a)We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious risk of bias; 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: 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.
7) 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 3 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
References of studies informing direct evidence:
1) Dekker-2012, Jaarsma-2008
2) Jaarsma-2008, Kwok-2008
3) Blue-2001
4) Blue-2001; Jaarsma-2008; Kwok-2008
5) Dekker-2012
6) Blue-2001
7) Dekker-2012
|
