1. Smoking Cessation / Smoking cessation |
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 |
211.65 [-7.326251999999999, 4098.714959999999] |
Very low |
It may have a large effect on smoking cessation, but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
30 |
11.375 [0.64087, 201.9174] |
Very low |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
2. Lung Function / FEV1/FVC ratio - forced expiratory volume in the first one second to the forced vital capacity of the lungs |
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 |
-1.47 [-2.98, 0.04] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in FEV1/FVC |
1 |
41 |
-1.47 [-2.98, 0.04] |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
3. Lung Function / FEV1 (% pred) - forced expiratory volume |
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 |
0.25 [-1.24, 1.74] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in FEV1 (% pred) |
1 |
41 |
0.25 [-1.24, 1.74] |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
Footnotes per outcome:
1) a) This estimate is a result of a pairwise meta-analysis (1 RCT, N= 30); b)We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision 2) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias; b) Number of studies included in the network: 18 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=19); 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. 3) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias;b) Number of studies included in the network: 32 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=19); 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) Efraimsson-2008a 2) Heidari-2018 3) Heidari-2018
|