| 1. Qualiy of life / Quality of life (generic instruments) |
| 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 |
| 0.33 [-0.76, 1.41] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on quality of life (generic instruments) but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
91 |
0.33 [-0.76, 1.41] |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
| 2. Coping with the disease, including depression and anxiety / Anxiety |
| 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 [-0.65, 0.22] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on anxiety but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
91 |
-0.22 [-0.65, 0.22] |
Low |
N/A |
N/A |
NA |
| 3. Coping with the disease, including depression and anxiety / Depression |
| 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 |
| 0.21 [-0.34, 0.75] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on depression but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
91 |
0.21 [-0.34, 0.75] |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
| 4. 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 |
| -0.28 [-3.11, 2.56] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in self-efficacy but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
91 |
-0.28 [-3.11, 2.56] |
Low |
1.0 |
N/A |
NA |
| 5. Qualiy of life / Quality of life (specific-disease instruments) |
| 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 |
| -0.01 [-1.23, 1.21] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on quality of life (specific-disease instruments) but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
91 |
-0.01 [-1.23, 1.21] |
Low |
8.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
Footnotes per outcome:
1) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias and very imprecision; b) Number of studies included in the network: 25 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=61); 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.
2) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious risk of bias and serious imprecision; b) Number of studies included in the network: 25 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=61); 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.
3) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias, and 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=61); 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 very serious risk of bias and serious imprecision;b) Number of studies included in the network: 25 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=61); 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 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, very serious imprecision;b) Number of studies included in the network: 8 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=61); 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) Taylor-2012
2) Taylor-2012
3) Taylor-2012
4) Taylor-2012
5) Taylor-2012
|
