| 1. Weight (management) / Weight (Kgs/lbs) |
| 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 |
| -1.02 [-3.92, 1.88] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in weight (kgs) |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
NA |
2.0 |
-1.02 [-3.92, 1.88] |
Low |
| 2. Lipid profile / Triglycerides |
| 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 |
| -1.86 [-2.41, -1.31] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in triglycerides (mmol/L) |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
NA |
3.0 |
-1.86 [-2.41, -1.31] |
Moderate |
| 3. Weight (management) / BMI - Body Mass Index |
| 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 |
| -0.4 [-1.54, 0.73] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in body mass index (kg/m²) |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
NA |
2.0 |
-0.4 [-1.54, 0.73] |
Low |
| 4. Lipid profile / LDL-Cholesterol |
| 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 |
| -16.63 [-21.72, -11.54] |
Moderate |
It likely results in little to no difference in LDL levels (mg/dL) |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
NA |
3.0 |
-16.63 [-21.72, -11.54] |
0 |
| 5. Lipid profile / HDL-Cholesterol (mmol) |
| 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 |
| 3.58 [0.72, 6.44] |
Very low |
It may result in a large decrease in HDL levels (mmol/L) |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
NA |
3.0 |
3.58 [0.72, 6.44] |
Low |
| 6. Blood-pressure / Diastolic pressure |
| 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 |
| -2.27 [-7.88, 3.33] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in diastolic blood pressure(mmHg) but the evidence is very uncertain |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
NA |
2.0 |
-2.27 [-7.88, 3.33] |
Low |
| 7. Blood-pressure / Systolic pressure |
| 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 |
| -1.11 [-9.65, 7.43] |
Very low |
It may decrease systolic blood pressure levels (mmHg) but the evidence is very uncertain |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
NA |
2.0 |
-1.11 [-9.65, 7.43] |
Very low |
| 8. Lipid profile / Total cholesterol |
| 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 |
| 16.6 [8.04, 25.16] |
Moderate |
It likely results in little to no difference on total cholesterol (mg/dL) |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
NA |
2.0 |
16.6 [8.04, 25.16] |
Moderate |
| 9. HbA1C / Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) |
| 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 |
| -0.6 [-1.08, -0.11] |
Low |
It may decrease HbA1C levels (%) but the evidence is very uncertain |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
NA |
3.0 |
-0.6 [-1.08, -0.11] |
Very low |
Footnotes per outcome:
1) a) Number of studies included in the network: 145 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 51 months for the studies included in the whole network; b) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to..
2) a) Number of studies included in the network: 171 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 0 RCT(s) (N=0); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 3 comparison(s). The range of follow up was from 1 to 96 months for the studies included in the whole network.; b) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious imprecision
3) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias; b) Number of studies included in the network: 231 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 96 months for the studies included in the whole network.
4) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious risk of bias; b) Number of studies included in the network: 171 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 0 RCT(s) (N=0); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 3 comparison(s). The range of follow up was from 1 to 96 months for the studies included in the whole network.
5) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious riks of bias and serious imprecision; b) Number of studies included in the network: 162 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 0 RCT(s) (N=0); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 3 comparison(s). The range of follow up was from 1 to 96 months for the studies included in the whole network.
6) a) Number of studies included in the network: 211 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 96 months for the studies included in the whole network; b) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision
7) a) We rated down down the certainty of evidence due to very serious imprecision and serious risk of bias; b) Number of studies included in the network: 44 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 96 months for the studies included in the whole network.
8) a) Number of studies included in the network: 176 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 96 months for the studies included in the whole network; b) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias
9) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious imprecision and serious risk of bias; b) Number of studies included in the network: 463 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 0 RCT(s) (N=0); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 3 comparison(s). The range of follow up was from 1 to 96 months for the studies included in the whole network.
References of studies informing direct evidence:
N/A
|
