| 1. 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 |
| 0.68 [-0.74, 2.1] |
Very low |
It may increase quality of life but the evidence is very uncertain |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
1.0 |
0.68 [-0.74, 2.1] |
Low |
| 2. 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 |
| -0.3 [-1.21, 0.61] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect in exercise capacity but the evidence is very uncertain |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
1.0 |
-0.3 [-1.21, 0.61] |
Low |
| 3. 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 |
| 2.42 [0.98, 3.86] |
Low |
It may result in a large increase in self-efficacy |
1 |
122 |
2.42 [0.98, 3.86] |
Low |
N/A |
N/A |
Low |
| 4. 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 |
| 0.9 [0.19, 1.6] |
Very low |
It may increase knowledge but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
82 |
0.9 [0.19, 1.6] |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
| 5. 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 |
| 357.797245179063 [-85.5922865013773, 4211.369696969692] |
Very low |
It may increase mortality but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
230 |
3.4903429574618414 [0.40252422403363597, 30.265244259400085] |
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, very serious imprecision; b)Number of studies included in the network: 82 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).
2) a)We rated down due to very serious imprecision and very serious risk of bias, b)Number of studies included in the network: 34 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 24 months for the studies included in the whole network. The range of follow-up was 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, ; b)Number of studies included in the network: 38 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=67); 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 2 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
4) 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=43); 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 due to very serious imprecision and very 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=122); 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:
3) Siabani-2016
4) Linne-2006
5) Linne-2006
|
