| 1. 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 |
| -42.05833333333331 [-67.00833333333331, 21.03333333333332] |
Very low |
It may decrease all-cause hospital readmissions but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
0 |
-0.7 [-1.63, 0.23] |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
| 2. 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 |
| 0.28 [-0.47, 1.03] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in knowledge but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
58 |
0.28 [-0.47, 1.03] |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
| 3. 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 |
| -11.3695652173913 [-32.25652173913043, 48.399999999999984] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect in emergency room visits but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
0 |
-0.3 [-1.35, 0.75] |
Moderate |
N/A |
N/A |
Moderate |
| 4. 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 |
| -10.681481481481477 [-44.26851851851851, 77.79074074074073] |
Very low |
It may increase all cause admission but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
0 |
-0.18 [-1.15, 0.79] |
Moderate |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
| 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 |
| 13.108295964125576 [-3.9235426008968664, 46.833295964125625] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect in HF-related hospital admissions but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
0 |
0.48 [-0.2, 1.16] |
Moderate |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
| 6. 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 |
| -62.74380165289248 [-107.66721763085388, 38.878236914600514] |
Very low |
It may decrease mortality but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
243 |
0.559898366565402 [0.24907530463166822, 1.2712491503214047] |
Moderate |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
Footnotes per outcome:
1) 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: 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 1 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, very serious risk of bias, and 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=27); 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 1 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, 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 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 and very serious imprecision; b)Number of studies included in the network: 45 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.
5) 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: 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.
6) 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: 1 RCT(s) (N=117); 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.
References of studies informing direct evidence:
1) Breathett-2018
2) Kostick-2018
3) Ruschel-2018
4) Ruschel-2018
5) Ruschel-2018
6) Ruschel-2018
|
