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 |
0.06 [-1.8, 1.92] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in weight (kgs) |
1 |
294 |
0.06 [-1.8, 1.92] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
2. 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 |
0.33 [-0.61, 1.26] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in body mass index (kg/m²) |
1 |
294 |
0.32 [-0.61, 1.26] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
3. 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 |
0.07 [-0.54, 0.67] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in HbA1C levels (%) but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
294 |
0.06 [-0.54, 0.67] |
Moderate |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
Footnotes per outcome:
1) a) Number of studies included in the network: 145 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=161); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 0 comparison(s). The range of follow up was from 1 to 51 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.; b) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias 2) 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: 1 RCT(s) (N=161); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 0 comparison(s).The range of follow up was from 1 to 96 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. 3) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very 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: 1 RCT(s) (N=161); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 0 comparison(s). The range of follow up was from 1 to 96 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.
References of studies informing direct evidence:
1) Lorig-2009 2) Lorig-2009 3) Lorig-2009
|