| 1. Quality of life-Physical and psychological functioning / Stress |
| 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 |
| 0.0 [-0.63, 0.63] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in stress levels but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
39 |
0.0 [-0.63, 0.63] |
Moderate |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
| 2. Healthy nutrition habits/personalized nutrition / Dietary habits |
| 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 |
| 0.0 [-0.71, 0.71] |
Very Low |
It may result in little to no difference on dietary habits but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
39 |
0.0 [-0.71, 0.71] |
Moderate |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
| 3. Physical Activity / Physical activity |
| 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 |
| 1.09 [0.09, 2.09] |
Low |
It may increase physical activity |
1 |
39 |
1.09 [0.09, 2.09] |
Moderate |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
Footnotes per outcome:
1) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious imprecision and serious risk of bias; b) Number of studies included in the network: 7 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=18); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 0 comparison(s). The range of follow up was from 2 to 9 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.
2) 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: 33 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=18); 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 2 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
3) 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: 55 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=18); 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 2 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
References of studies informing direct evidence:
1) Halperin-2018
2) Halperin-2018
3) Halperin-2018
|
