1. Weight management / BMI - Body Mass Index |
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 |
-1.65 [-3.4, 0.1] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in Body mass index |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
1.0 |
-1.65 [-3.4, 0.1] |
Low |
2. Comorbidities managament / Systolic pressure |
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 |
-2.97 [-10.3, 4.36] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in systolic pressure |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
1.0 |
-2.97 [-10.3, 4.36] |
Low |
3. Weight management / Waist size |
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 |
-3.11 [-6.89, 0.66] |
Moderate |
It likely results in little to no difference on waist size |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
1.0 |
-3.11 [-6.89, 0.66] |
Low |
4. Comorbidities managament / Diastolic pressure |
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 |
-2.22 [-6.8, 2.36] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in diastolic pressure |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
1.0 |
-2.22 [-6.8, 2.36] |
Low |
5. 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 |
0.38 [-0.51, 1.27] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in physical activity |
1 |
63 |
0.38 [-0.51, 1.27] |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
6. Weight management / Weight (Kgs/lbs) |
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 |
-1.52 [-4.19, 1.15] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in weight |
2 |
199 |
-0.56 [-3.98, 2.86] |
Low |
2.0 |
-3.03 [-7.31, 1.26] |
Low |
Footnotes per outcome:
1) a)We rated down the certainty of evidence due to, serious imprecision;b)Number of studies included in the network: 8 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. 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: 8 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. 3) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious risk of bias; b) Number of studies included in the network: 178 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). 4) a)We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious risk of bias, serious imprecision; b)Number of studies included in the network: 112 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 96 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. 5) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias and very 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=31); 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 9 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 6) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias; b) Number of studies included in the network: 329 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 2 RCT(s) (N=124); 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 6-9 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
References of studies informing direct evidence:
5) Ewert-2016 6) Ewert-2016, Yardley-2014
|