| 1. Lung Function / FEV1 (L/min) - 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 |
| 0.51 [0.3, 0.72] |
Low |
It may result in a large increase in FEV1 |
1 |
87 |
0.51 [0.3, 0.72] |
Low |
1.0 |
N/A |
NA |
| 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 |
| 4.77 [1.81, 7.73] |
Very low |
It may increase FEV1/FVC but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
87 |
4.77 [1.81, 7.73] |
Low |
1.0 |
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 |
| 6.03 [3.29, 8.77] |
Very low |
It may increase FEV1 (% pred) but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
87 |
6.03 [3.29, 8.77] |
Low |
1.0 |
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 |
| 1.42 [-1.42, 4.26] |
Very low |
It may increase self-efficacy but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
87 |
1.42 [-1.42, 4.26] |
Low |
2.0 |
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 |
| 1.5 [0.26, 2.73] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on quality of life (specific-disease instruments) but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
87 |
1.5 [0.26, 2.73] |
Low |
8.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
| 6. Physical activity / Muscle strenght / 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 |
| 3.38 [1.79, 4.98] |
Low |
It may result in a large increase in exercise capacity |
1 |
87 |
3.38 [1.79, 4.98] |
Low |
0 |
N/A |
NA |
Footnotes per outcome:
1) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias;b) Number of studies included in the network: 15 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=42); 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.
2) 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: 18 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=42); 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.
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: 32 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=42); 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.
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=42); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 2 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, and 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=42); 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.
6) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias
References of studies informing direct evidence:
1) Zhang-2016
2) Zhang-2016
3) Zhang-2016
4) Zhang-2016
5) Zhang-2016
6) Zhang-2016
|
