| 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 |
| -0.22 [-0.58, 0.14] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in stress levels but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
128 |
-0.22 [-0.58, 0.14] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
| 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 |
| 0.25 [-0.56, 1.07] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in physical activity |
1 |
134 |
0.25 [-0.56, 1.07] |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
| 3. Healthy nutrition habits/personalized nutrition / Consumption of 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 |
| -0.05 [-0.39, 0.29] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in consumption of fat |
1 |
134 |
-0.05 [-0.39, 0.29] |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
| 4. Healthy nutrition habits/personalized nutrition / Fruit and vegetable consumption |
| 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 [0.12, 0.81] |
Very Low |
It may have little to no effect on Fruit and vegetable consumption but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
134 |
0.47 [0.12, 0.81] |
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 |
| -3.7 [-8.75, 1.35] |
Very low |
It may decrease diastolic pressure but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
88 |
-3.7 [-8.75, 1.35] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
| 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 [-11.03, 4.03] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in systolic pressure |
1 |
88 |
-3.5 [-11.03, 4.03] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
| 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 |
| -0.7 [-2.62, 1.22] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on Body mass index |
1 |
88 |
-0.7 [-2.62, 1.22] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
| 8. 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 |
| -2.4 [-5.65, 0.86] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in weight |
2 |
222 |
-2.4 [-5.65, 0.86] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
Footnotes per outcome:
1) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious imprecision and very 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=82); 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 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=69); 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 very serious risk of bias; b) Number of studies included in the network: 20 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=69); 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.
4) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of biasserious imprecision; b) Number of studies included in the network: 15 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=69); 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.
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: 1 RCT(s) (N=43); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 0 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 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 and serious imprecision;b)Number of studies included in the network: 122 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=43); 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.
7) a)We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias and serious imprecision, serious imprecision;b)Number of studies included in the network: 222 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=43); 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.
8) 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=112); 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 2-3 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
References of studies informing direct evidence:
1) Chang-2010
2) Chang-2010
3) Chang-2010
4) Chang-2010
5) Kraschnewski-2011
6) Kraschnewski-2011
7) Kraschnewski-2011
8) Chang-2010, Kraschnewski-2011
|
