1. 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 |
0.38 [-0.81, 1.56] |
Very Low |
It may result in little to no difference on dietary habits but the evidence is very uncertain |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
1.0 |
0.38 [-0.81, 1.56] |
Low |
2. 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 |
-783.23 [-4918.93, 3352.47] |
Very low |
It may increase steps but the evidence is very uncertain |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
2.0 |
-783.23 [-4918.93, 3352.47] |
Low |
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 |
-0.18 [-1.71, 1.36] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in physical activity |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
2.0 |
-0.18 [-1.71, 1.36] |
Low |
4. 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 |
-0.29 [-0.66, 0.08] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in body fat |
1 |
99 |
-0.12 [-0.59, 0.35] |
Low |
4.0 |
-0.56 [-1.15, 0.03] |
Low |
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 |
-1.23 [-4.4, 1.94] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on diastolic pressure but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
99 |
-0.82 [-5.19, 3.55] |
Low |
3.0 |
-1.68 [-6.29, 2.93] |
Low |
6. 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 |
-2.87 [-4.45, -1.3] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in waist size |
4 |
314 |
-1.86 [-4.07, 0.35] |
Low |
7.0 |
-3.91 [-6.15, -1.67] |
Low |
7. 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 |
-1.37 [-6.22, 3.48] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in systolic pressure |
1 |
99 |
-2.81 [-9.8, 4.18] |
Low |
3.0 |
-0.03 [-6.76, 6.71] |
Low |
8. 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 |
-0.5 [-1.13, 0.14] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in Body mass index |
2 |
99 |
-0.37 [-1.87, 1.12] |
Low |
7.0 |
-0.53 [-1.23, 0.17] |
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 |
-1.57 [-2.65, -0.49] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on weight but the evidence is very uncertain |
8 |
780 |
-1.44 [-3.08, 0.2] |
Very low |
10.0 |
-1.67 [-3.11, -0.23] |
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: 33 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 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. 3) 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: 2 comparison(s). 4) 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: 1 RCT(s) (N=49); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 4 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 Barry-2011 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 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=49); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 3 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 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: 178 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 4 RCT(s) (N=161); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 7 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. 7) 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: 1 RCT(s) (N=49); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 3 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. 8) a)We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias; b)Number of studies included in the network: 222 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 2 RCT(s) (N=49); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 7 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 9-12 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 9) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious of risk of bias and serious inconsistency; b) Number of studies included in the network: 329 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 8 RCT(s) (N=436); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 10 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 4-12 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
References of studies informing direct evidence:
4) Barry-2011 5) Barry-2011 6) Barry-2011,Byrne-2006,Haggerty-2017,Hansel-2017b 7) Barry-2011 8) Barry-2011,Mcconnon-2007 9) Barry-2011, Byrne-2006, Haggerty-2017, Hansel-2017b, Patrick-2009, Shapiro-2012, Thomas-2017, Mcconnon-2007
|