| 1. Physical Activity / Total steps |
| 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 |
| -2266.62 [-7077.91, 2544.67] |
Very low |
It may increase steps but the evidence is very uncertain |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
2.0 |
-2266.62 [-7077.91, 2544.67] |
Low |
| 2. 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 |
| 0.22 [-1.56, 2.0] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in physical activity |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
1.0 |
0.22 [-1.56, 2.0] |
Low |
| 3. Weight management / Body fat |
| 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 |
| -0.47 [-1.12, 0.19] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in body fat |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
NA |
1.0 |
-0.47 [-1.12, 0.19] |
Low |
| 4. 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 |
| -0.25 [-0.8, 0.31] |
Very Low |
It may result in little to no difference on dietary habits but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
79 |
-0.25 [-0.8, 0.31] |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
| 5. 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 |
| -0.79 [-3.43, 1.86] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on diastolic pressure but the evidence is very uncertain |
2 |
358 |
-0.01 [-3.12, 3.1] |
Low |
2.0 |
-2.78 [-7.79, 2.22] |
Moderate |
| 6. 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 |
| -3.5 [-7.71, 0.71] |
Low |
It likely results in little to no difference on systolic pressure |
2 |
358 |
-2.0 [-7.04, 3.04] |
Moderate |
2.0 |
-6.96 [-14.62, 0.71] |
Moderate |
| 7. 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 |
| -0.6 [-1.26, 0.07] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on Body mass index |
4 |
580 |
-1.07 [-1.97, -0.17] |
Very low |
6.0 |
-0.04 [-1.01, 0.94] |
Low |
| 8. 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 |
| -1.74 [-3.33, -0.16] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in waist size |
4 |
538 |
-1.37 [-3.33, 0.59] |
Low |
4.0 |
-2.45 [-5.13, 0.24] |
Low |
| 9. 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 |
| -0.38 [-2.05, 1.28] |
Moderate |
It likely results in little to no difference on weight |
3 |
312 |
-0.53 [-3.52, 2.46] |
Moderate |
6.0 |
-0.31 [-2.32, 1.69] |
Low |
Footnotes per outcome:
1) 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: 31 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 0 RCT(s) (N=0); 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.
2) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to, very serious imprecision;b) Number of studies included in the network: 329 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).
3) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias; b) Number of studies included in the network: 27 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 2 to 24 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.
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: 33 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=39); 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 4 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 risk of bias, and serious imprecision; b)Number of studies included in the network: 112 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 2 RCT(s) (N=183); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 2 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 3-24 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
6) 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: 122 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 2 RCT(s) (N=183); 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 3-24 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
7) a)We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias and very serious inconsistency; b)Number of studies included in the network: 222 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 4 RCT(s) (N=296); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 6 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 3-24 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
8) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias; b) Number of studies included in the network: 178 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 4 RCT(s) (N=276); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 4 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 3-24 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
9) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious risk of bias; b) Number of studies included in the network: 329 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 3 RCT(s) (N=157); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 6 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 3-4 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
References of studies informing direct evidence:
4) Busnello-2011
5) Appel-2011, Kempf-2018a
6) Appel-2011,Kempf-2018a
7) Appel-2011, Busnello-2011, Kempf-2018a, Yoo-2009b
8) Appel-2011,Busnello-2011,Kempf-2018a,Yoo-2009b
9) Busnello-2011, Kempf-2018a, Yoo-2009b
|
