1. 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 |
-14.99 [-27.66, -2.32] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in LDL levels (mg/dL) |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
NA |
1.0 |
-14.99 [-27.66, -2.32] |
0 |
2. 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 |
1.63 [-7.76, 11.02] |
Very low |
It may decrease systolic blood pressure levels (mmHg) but the evidence is very uncertain |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
NA |
1.0 |
1.63 [-7.76, 11.02] |
Very low |
3. 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 |
1.76 [-3.53, 7.06] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in diastolic blood pressure(mmHg) but the evidence is very uncertain |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
NA |
1.0 |
1.76 [-3.53, 7.06] |
Low |
4. 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 |
-4.37 [-10.06, 1.33] |
Very low |
It may result in a large increase in HDL levels (mmol/L) |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
NA |
1.0 |
-4.37 [-10.06, 1.33] |
Low |
5. 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 |
0.47 [-5.86, 6.8] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in weight (kgs) |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
NA |
1.0 |
0.47 [-5.86, 6.8] |
Low |
6. Self-monitoring / Glucose self-monitoring |
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 |
2.54 [1.37, 3.7] |
Low |
It may result in a large increase in glucose self-monitoring |
1 |
60 |
2.54 [1.37, 3.7] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
7. Self-management behaviours / Foot care |
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 |
2.48 [1.78, 3.19] |
Low |
It may result in a large increase in foot care self-management |
1 |
60 |
2.48 [1.78, 3.19] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
8. Dietary habits |
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 |
1.76 [1.04, 2.48] |
Low |
It may result in a large improvement in dietary habits |
1 |
60 |
1.76 [1.04, 2.48] |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
9. Self-management behaviours |
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 |
0.27 [-1.01, 1.56] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in self-management behaviours |
1 |
60 |
0.27 [-1.01, 1.56] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
10. 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 |
-0.42 [-1.11, 0.28] |
Moderate |
It likely results in little to no difference in triglycerides (mmol/L) |
1 |
60 |
-0.88 [-1.77, 0.02] |
Moderate |
2.0 |
0.28 [-0.82, 1.38] |
Moderate |
11. 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 |
-15.19 [-28.21, -2.17] |
Moderate |
It likely results in little to no difference on total cholesterol (mg/dL) |
1 |
60 |
-25.7 [-50.01, -1.39] |
Moderate |
2.0 |
-10.97 [-26.38, 4.44] |
Moderate |
12. 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 |
-0.29 [-0.71, 0.13] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in HbA1C levels (%) |
2 |
188 |
-0.01 [-0.52, 0.51] |
Moderate |
2.0 |
-0.9 [-1.66, -0.15] |
Moderate |
13. 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 |
0.57 [-0.99, 2.13] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in body mass index (kg/m²) |
1 |
60 |
0.6 [-1.54, 2.74] |
Low |
2.0 |
0.53 [-1.74, 2.81] |
Low |
Footnotes per outcome:
1) 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: 1 comparison(s). The range of follow up was from 1 to 96 months for the studies included in the whole network. 2) 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: 1 comparison(s). The range of follow up was from 1 to 96 months for the studies included in the whole network. 3) 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: 1 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 to very serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision 4) 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: 1 comparison(s). The range of follow up was from 1 to 96 months for the studies included in the whole network. 5) 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: 1 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.. 6) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias; b) Number of studies included in the network: 29 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=30); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 0 comparison(s). The range of follow up was from 2 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. 7) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias; b) Number of studies included in the network: 26 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=30); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 0 comparison(s). The range of follow up was from 2 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. 8) a) Number of studies included in the network: 30 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=30); 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.; b) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias 9) a) Number of studies included in the network: 40 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=30); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 0 comparison(s) The range of follow up was from 1 to 12 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; b) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision 10) a) Number of studies included in the network: 171 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=30); 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. The range of follow-up was 3 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.; b) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious risk of bias 11) a) Number of studies included in the network: 176 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=30); 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. The range of follow-up was 3 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.; b) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious risk of bias 12) 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: 2 RCT(s) (N=94); 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. The range of follow-up was 3-6 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 13) 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=30); 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. 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:
6) Hemmati Maslakpak-2017 7) Hemmati Maslakpak-2017 8) Hemmati Maslakpak-2017 9) Hemmati Maslakpak-2017 10) Hemmati Maslakpak-2017 11) Hemmati Maslakpak-2017 12) Arora-2014, Hemmati Maslakpak-2017 13) Hemmati Maslakpak-2017
|