1. 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 |
-0.6481481481481486 [-48.66296296296295, 190.04351851851848] |
Very low |
It may increase all cause admission but the evidence is very uncertain |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
1.0 |
-0.01 [-1.39, 1.37] |
Moderate |
2. 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 |
-14.267768595041309 [-71.28154269972445, 87.89862258953157] |
Very low |
It may decrease mortality but the evidence is very uncertain |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
1.0 |
0.9048374180359595 [0.5015760690660556, 1.6160744021928934] |
Moderate |
3. 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 |
1.17 [0.38, 1.95] |
Very low |
It may increase knowledge but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
56 |
1.17 [0.38, 1.95] |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
4. 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 |
-18.82533632286998 [-21.170515695067294, 25.818273542600927] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect in HF-related hospital admissions but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
0 |
-2.15 [-5.1, 0.79] |
Moderate |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
5. 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 |
0.93 [-0.12, 1.97] |
Very Low |
It may increase self-efficacy but the evidence is very uncertain |
2 |
100 |
0.93 [-0.12, 1.97] |
Low |
N/A |
N/A |
Low |
6. 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 |
-8.07883817427387 [-25.245228215767654, 23.53360995850625] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on HF-related hospital readmissions but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
0 |
-0.19 [-0.81, 0.42] |
Moderate |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
7. 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 |
0.51 [-0.44, 1.46] |
Very low |
It may increase quality of life but the evidence is very uncertain |
2 |
100 |
0.51 [-0.44, 1.46] |
Very low |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
Footnotes per outcome:
1) 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: 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; 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). 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, 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=29); 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. 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: 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. 5) 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: 2 RCT(s) (N=50); 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 1-6 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 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: 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 12 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, very serious imprecision; b)Number of studies included in the network: 81 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 2 RCT(s) (N=50); 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 - 6 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
References of studies informing direct evidence:
3) Dickson-2014 4) Lang-2018 5) Dickson-2014; Lang-2018 6) Smith-2014 7) Dickson-2014; Lang-2018
|