| 1. 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 |
| 0.49 [-0.27, 1.25] |
Very Low |
It may result in little to no difference in self-efficacy but the evidence is very uncertain |
3 |
238 |
0.48 [-0.35, 1.31] |
Low |
2.0 |
0.55 [-1.37, 2.46] |
Low |
| 2. 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 |
| -12.246058091286319 [-22.90373443983405, 3.4049792531120366] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on HF-related hospital readmissions but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
0 |
-0.2 [-0.62, 0.22] |
Low |
2.0 |
-0.97 [-1.97, 0.04] |
Low |
| 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 |
| -13.283333333333328 [-32.51666666666665, 13.216666666666669] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect in all-cause hospital readmissions but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
0 |
-0.24 [-0.62, 0.15] |
Low |
0.0 |
-0.04 [-0.61, 0.53] |
Low |
| 4. 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 |
| -28.17391304347825 [-39.63478260869564, 17.45217391304347] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect in emergency room visits but the evidence is very uncertain |
2 |
0 |
-1.04 [-2.43, 0.34] |
Moderate |
N/A |
N/A |
Moderate |
| 5. 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 |
| -3.3377802690582987 [-8.581950672645752, 4.070515695067271] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect in HF-related hospital admissions but the evidence is very uncertain |
5 |
0 |
-0.17 [-0.52, 0.17] |
Low |
1.0 |
N/A |
NA |
| 6. 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 |
| -35.058333333333316 [-44.62499999999999, -20.954629629629625] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in all cause admission |
8 |
0 |
-0.78 [-1.17, -0.39] |
Low |
1.0 |
N/A |
NA |
| 7. 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 |
| -34.02203856749308 [-53.59008264462803, -10.185123966942145] |
Very low |
It may decrease mortality but the evidence is very uncertain |
7 |
3526 |
0.7408182206817179 [0.5886049696783552, 0.9323938199059483] |
Very low |
3.0 |
0.835270211411272 [0.559898366565402, 1.2586000099294778] |
Very low |
| 8. Exercise capacity (including effort test) / Exercise capacity |
| 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 |
| 0.41 [0.06, 0.76] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect in exercise capacity but the evidence is very uncertain |
4 |
503 |
0.47 [0.11, 0.83] |
Very low |
1.0 |
-0.98 [-2.76, 0.81] |
Very low |
| 9. 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 |
| 0.22 [-0.29, 0.73] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in quality of life but the evidence is very uncertain |
6 |
572 |
0.19 [-0.38, 0.75] |
Very low |
2.0 |
0.39 [-0.86, 1.65] |
Very low |
| 10. Knowledge |
| 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 |
| 0.0 [-0.71, 0.71] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in knowledge but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
72 |
0.0 [-0.71, 0.71] |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
Footnotes per outcome:
1) 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: 3 RCT(s) (N=113); 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 3-6 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
2) a)We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision; 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: 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 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 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 6 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
4) 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: 2 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.
5) a)We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very 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: 5 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 3-12 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, serious inconsistency; b)Number of studies included in the network: 45 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 8 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 3-12 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
7) a)We rated down due to very serious risk of bias and serious inconsistency; b)Number of studies included in the network: 82 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 7 RCT(s) (N=1864); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 3 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 6-12 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
8) a)We rated down due to serious imprecision, very serious risk of bias, and serious inconsistency, b)Number of studies included in the network: 34 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 4 RCT(s) (N=245); 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 0 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
9) a)We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias, very serious imprecision; b)Number of studies included in the network: 81 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 6 RCT(s) (N=272); 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 3 - 19 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
10) a)We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias, very serious risk of bias, and very serious imprecision; b)Number of studies included in the network: 16 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=32); 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.
References of studies informing direct evidence:
1) Du-2018; Graven-2018; Melin-2018
2) Chen-2018a
3) Chen-2018a
4) Albert-2007, Dansky-2009
5) Albert-2007, Cleland-2005, Hale-2016, Krum-2013, Wagenaar-2018
6) Antonicelli-2016, Cleland-2005, Dansky-2009, Hale-2016, Koehler-2018, Krum-2013, Pedone-2015, Wagenaar-2018
7) 0.0
8) Antonicelli-2016, Babu-2011, Cowie-2011, Du-2018
9) Antonicelli-2016; Cowie-2011; De Lusignan-2001; Du-2018; Hale-2016; Melin-2018
10) Melin-2018
|
