| 1. 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 |
| -0.27 [-1.4, 0.87] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in physical activity |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
1.0 |
-0.27 [-1.4, 0.87] |
Low |
| 2. Self-efficacy / Exercise 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 |
| 1.7 [-0.09, 3.49] |
Low |
It may result in a large increase in exercise self-efficacy |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
NA |
1.0 |
1.7 [-0.09, 3.49] |
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 |
| -3.7 [-5.12, -2.28] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on waist size |
2 |
129 |
-2.0 [-4.65, 0.65] |
Very low |
5.0 |
-4.39 [-6.07, -2.7] |
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 |
| -3.45 [-5.64, -1.26] |
Very low |
It may decrease diastolic pressure but the evidence is very uncertain |
2 |
211 |
-4.95 [-8.02, -1.88] |
Very low |
2.0 |
-1.9 [-5.02, 1.23] |
Low |
| 5. 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 |
| -8.09 [-11.6, -4.58] |
Very low |
It may decrease systolic pressure |
2 |
211 |
-11.59 [-16.51, -6.66] |
Very low |
2.0 |
-4.49 [-9.49, 0.5] |
Low |
| 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 |
| -3.55 [-4.81, -2.29] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on weight but the evidence is very uncertain |
4 |
246 |
-5.33 [-7.77, -2.89] |
Very low |
9.0 |
-2.9 [-4.37, -1.43] |
Low |
| 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 |
| -1.68 [-2.38, -0.97] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on Body mass index |
3 |
246 |
-1.76 [-2.74, -0.79] |
Very low |
2.0 |
-1.58 [-2.6, -0.56] |
Low |
Footnotes per outcome:
1) 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).
2) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious imprecision and serious risk of bias; b) Number of studies included in the network: 16 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 9 months for the studies included in the whole network.
3) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias and serious inconsistency; b) Number of studies included in the network: 178 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 2 RCT(s) (N=74); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 5 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.
4) a)We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias, serious inconsistency, 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=139); 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 3-6 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
5) a)We rated down the certainty of evidence due to 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=139); 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 3-6 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 of risk of bias and very serious of inconsistency; b) Number of studies included in the network: 329 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 4 RCT(s) (N=157); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 9 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 3-14 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: 3 RCT(s) (N=157); 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 3-6 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
References of studies informing direct evidence:
3) Morgan-2012,Pritchett-2012
4) Morgan-2012, Salinardi-2013
5) Morgan-2012,Salinardi-2013
6) Morgan-2012, Pritchett-2012, Salinardi-2013, Voils-2017
7) Morgan-2012, Pritchett-2012, Salinardi-2013
|
