| 1. Lipid profile / Total cholesterol |
| 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 |
| -5.5 [-8.92, -2.07] |
Moderate |
It likely results in little to no difference on total cholesterol (mg/dL) |
14 |
2158 |
-6.02 [-10.34, -1.69] |
Moderate |
6.0 |
-4.63 [-10.23, 0.98] |
Moderate |
| 2. 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 |
| -2.23 [-3.83, -0.64] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in waist size (cm) |
6 |
340 |
-3.48 [-5.71, -1.25] |
Low |
5.0 |
-0.92 [-3.2, 1.37] |
Low |
| 3. Dietary habits / 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 |
| -0.75 [-1.45, -0.05] |
Very low |
It may result in a slight decrease in fat consumption |
4 |
884 |
-0.75 [-1.45, -0.05] |
Very low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
| 4. Lipid profile / HDL-Cholesterol (mmol) |
| 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 |
| 0.28 [-0.93, 1.49] |
Very low |
It may decrease HDL levels (mmol/L) but the evidence is very uncertain |
17 |
2789 |
0.41 [-1.03, 1.85] |
Very low |
4.0 |
-0.03 [-2.25, 2.2] |
Very low |
| 5. Lipid profile / LDL-Cholesterol |
| 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 |
| -2.5 [-4.5, -0.51] |
Moderate |
It likely results in little to no difference in LDL levels (mg/dL) |
15 |
3099 |
-4.03 [-6.42, -1.65] |
Moderate |
4.0 |
1.09 [-2.56, 4.74] |
Moderate |
| 6. Blood-pressure / 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 |
| -0.93 [-1.82, -0.03] |
Moderate |
It likely results in little to no difference in diastolic blood pressure (mmHg) |
19 |
3743 |
-1.01 [-2.04, 0.01] |
Moderate |
4.0 |
-0.63 [-2.51, 1.24] |
Moderate |
| 7. Physical activity / Steps/day |
| 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 |
| 0.37 [-0.08, 0.83] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in steps per day |
1 |
103 |
0.37 [-0.08, 0.83] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
| 8. Lipid profile / Triglycerides |
| 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 |
| -0.11 [-0.3, 0.08] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in triglycerides (mmol/L) |
14 |
2029 |
-0.2 [-0.42, 0.02] |
Low |
4.0 |
0.16 [-0.22, 0.54] |
Low |
| 9. 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 |
| -0.37 [-0.71, -0.03] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in body mass index (kg/m²) |
16 |
2874 |
-0.4 [-0.79, -0.01] |
Low |
4.0 |
-0.28 [-1.0, 0.43] |
Low |
| 10. Blood-pressure / 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 |
| -2.48 [-4.09, -0.86] |
Very low |
It may increase systolic blood pressure levels (mmHg) but the evidence is very uncertain |
19 |
3883 |
-2.38 [-4.21, -0.55] |
Very low |
4.0 |
-2.82 [-6.28, 0.63] |
Very low |
| 11. Long-term complications / Long term complications |
| NMA |
Direct |
Indirect |
| Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
Interpretation of findings |
Number of studies |
Number of patients |
Relative effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
Number of comparisons informing indirect evidence |
Relative effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
| 33.58 [-83.18, 2050.46] |
Very low |
It may slightly increase long term complications incidence but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
83 |
0.2147 [-1.9751, 2.4045] |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
| 12. 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 |
| -0.89 [-1.91, 0.12] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in weight (kgs) |
9 |
1788 |
-1.69 [-3.21, -0.17] |
Low |
7.0 |
-0.26 [-1.61, 1.1] |
Low |
| 13. Self-monitoring / Glucose self-monitoring |
| 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 |
| 0.54 [-0.07, 1.16] |
Very low |
It may increase glucose self-monitoring but the evidence is very uncertain |
3 |
266 |
0.54 [-0.07, 1.16] |
Very low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
| 14. 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 |
| 0.74 [0.29, 1.18] |
Very low |
It may increase self-efficacy but the evidence is very uncertain |
5 |
452 |
0.75 [0.28, 1.22] |
Very low |
1.0 |
0.62 [-0.85, 2.09] |
Very low |
| 15. 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 |
| 0.4 [0.13, 0.66] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in physical activity |
7 |
899 |
0.4 [0.13, 0.66] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
| 16. Experience of care / Care satisfaction |
| 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 |
| 0.4 [-0.88, 1.67] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in care satisfaction but the evidence is very uncertain |
2 |
499 |
0.4 [-0.88, 1.67] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
| 17. Knowledge |
| 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 |
| 1.0 [0.31, 1.68] |
Very low |
It may increase knowledge but the evidence is very uncertain |
3 |
279 |
0.97 [0.2, 1.75] |
Low |
1.0 |
1.07 [-0.34, 2.48] |
Low |
| 18. Self-management behaviours / Foot care |
| 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 |
| 0.2 [-0.16, 0.56] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in foot care self-management but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
156 |
0.2 [-0.16, 0.56] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
| 19. 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 |
| 0.65 [0.33, 0.97] |
Very low |
It may improve dietary habits but the evidence is very uncertain |
3 |
375 |
0.65 [0.33, 0.97] |
Very low |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
| 20. Adherence / Medication (or other treatment) adherence |
| 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 |
| 0.03 [-0.75, 0.82] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in adherence but the evidence is very uncertain |
4 |
573 |
0.03 [-0.75, 0.82] |
Very low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
| 21. Quality of life / Psychological distress |
| 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 |
| -0.15 [-0.47, 0.16] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in psychological distress |
4 |
1025 |
-0.15 [-0.47, 0.16] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
| 22. HbA1C / Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) |
| 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 [-0.49, -0.26] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in HbA1C levels (%) |
33 |
5310 |
-0.42 [-0.56, -0.28] |
Low |
9.0 |
-0.28 [-0.49, -0.08] |
Low |
| 23. Quality of life |
| 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 |
| 0.35 [0.06, 0.63] |
Very Low |
It may result in little to no difference in quality of life |
6 |
683 |
0.49 [0.13, 0.85] |
Low |
5.0 |
0.09 [-0.38, 0.56] |
Low |
| 24. Self-management behaviours |
| 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 |
| 0.76 [-0.45, 1.98] |
Low |
It may result in a slight increase in self-management behaviours |
1 |
195 |
0.76 [-0.45, 1.98] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
Footnotes per outcome:
1) a) Number of studies included in the network: 176 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 14 RCT(s) (N=1105); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 6 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 2-6 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.; b) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious risk of bias
2) a) Number of studies included in the network: 81 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 6 RCT(s) (N=185); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 5 comparison(s). The range of follow up was from 1 to 36 months for the studies included in the whole network. The range of follow-up was 6 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.; b) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias
3) a) Number of studies included in the network: 14 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 4 RCT(s) (N=446); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 0 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 2 - 6 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care; b) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias, serious inconsistency, and serious imprecision
4) 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: 162 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 17 RCT(s) (N=1420); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 4 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 2-24 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 risk of bias; b) Number of studies included in the network: 171 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 15 RCT(s) (N=1519); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 4 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) Number of studies included in the network: 211 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 19 RCT(s) (N=1860); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 4 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.; b) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious risk of bias
7) 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: 7 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=59); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 0 comparison(s). The range of follow up was from 3 to 12 months for the studies included in the whole network. The range of follow-up was 12 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
8) a) Number of studies included in the network: 171 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 14 RCT(s) (N=1042); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 4 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 3-12 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.; b) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias
9) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias; b) Number of studies included in the network: 231 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 16 RCT(s) (N=1493); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 4 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.
10) 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: 233 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 19 RCT(s) (N=1912); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 4 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.
11) a) This estimate is a result of a pairwise meta-analysis (1 RCT, N=83); The range of follow-up was 12 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care; b) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision
12) a) Number of studies included in the network: 145 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 9 RCT(s) (N=910); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 7 comparison(s). The range of follow up was from 1 to 51 months for the studies included in the whole network. The range of follow-up was 2- 12 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.; b) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to..
13) 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: 29 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 3 RCT(s) (N=134); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 0 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 3-6 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
14) 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: 55 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 5 RCT(s) (N=262); 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. The range of follow-up was 1-12 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
15) 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: 64 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 7 RCT(s) (N=454); 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 2-12 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
16) a) Number of studies included in the network: 13 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 2 RCT(s) (N=246); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 0 comparison(s) The range of follow up was from 3 to 14 months for the studies included in the whole network. The range of follow-up was 3 - 12 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care; b) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias and serious imprecision
17) a) Number of studies included in the network: 43 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 3 RCT(s) (N=141); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 1 comparison(s). The range of follow up was from 2 to 60 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.; b) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias and serious imprecision
18) 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: 26 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=77); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 0 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 6 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
19) a) Number of studies included in the network: 30 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 3 RCT(s) (N=176); 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 3-6 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.; b) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias, serious inconsistency, and serious imprecision
20) a) Number of studies included in the network: 55 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 4 RCT(s) (N=277); 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 1-6 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.; b) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious imprecision, very serious risk of bias, and serious inconsistency
21) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias; b) Number of studies included in the network: 44 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 4 RCT(s) (N=470); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 0 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 2-24 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
22) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious risk of bias and serious inconsistency; b) Number of studies included in the network: 463 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 33 RCT(s) (N=2692); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 9 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 2-24 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
23) a) Number of studies included in the network: 81 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 6 RCT(s) (N=378); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 5 comparison(s). The range of follow up was from 1 to 60 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.; b) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious imprecision and very serious risk of bias
24) a) Number of studies included in the network: 40 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=89); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 0 comparison(s) The range of follow up was from 1 to 12 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; b) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias and serious imprecision
References of studies informing direct evidence:
1) Ayadurai-2018, barratt-2008, Cho-2011, Franciosi-2011, Glasgow-2006a, Jayasuriya-2015, Kim-2009, Kim-2015, Kirk-2004, Liou-2014, Odnoletkova-2016, Rosal-2005, Salinero-Fort-2011, Trento-2008
2) Ayadurai-2018
3) Adachi-2013, Glasgow-2006, Glasgow-2006a, Thoolen-2009
4) Adachi-2013, Alghafri-2018, Ayadurai-2018, barratt-2008, Cox-2016, Franciosi-2011, Glasgow-2006, Glasgow-2006a, Jayasuriya-2015, Kim-2009, Kim-2015, Kirk-2004, Liou-2014, Odnoletkova-2016, Rosal-2005, Salinero-Fort-2011, Trento-2008
5) Adachi-2013Alghafri-2018Ayadurai-2018barratt-2008Cox-2016Jayasuriya-2015Kim-2015Kirk-2004Liou-2014McKee-2011Odnoletkova-2016Rosal-2005Salinero-Fort-2011Stuckey-2009Tang-2012
6) Adachi-2013Alghafri-2018Ayadurai-2018barratt-2008Cox-2016Franciosi-2011Jarab-2012Kim-2009Kim-2015Kirk-2004Krass-2007Liou-2014McKee-2011Odnoletkova-2016Rosal-2005Salinero-Fort-2011Stuckey-2009Tang-2012Trento-2008
7) Alghafri-2018
8) Adachi-2013, Alghafri-2018, Ayadurai-2018, barratt-2008, Cho-2011, Cox-2016, Franciosi-2011, Jarab-2012, Kim-2009, Kim-2015, Kirk-2004, Krass-2007, Odnoletkova-2016, Rosal-2005
9) Adachi-2013, Alghafri-2018, Ayadurai-2018, Franciosi-2011, Jayasuriya-2015, Kim-2009, Kirk-2004, Krass-2007, Liou-2014, Nishita-2013, Odnoletkova-2016, Rosal-2005, Salinero-Fort-2011, Sriram-2011, Thoolen-2009, Trento-2008
10) Adachi-2013Alghafri-2018Ayadurai-2018barratt-2008Cox-2016Franciosi-2011Jarab-2012Jayasuriya-2015Kim-2009Kim-2015Kjeldsen-2015Krass-2007Liou-2014McKee-2011Odnoletkova-2016Rosal-2005Salinero-Fort-2011Stuckey-2009Tang-2012
11) McMurray-2002
12) Alghafri-2018, barratt-2008, Cox-2016, Franciosi-2011, Glasgow-2006, Jayasuriya-2015, Odnoletkova-2016, Tan-2011, Tang-2012
13) Cho-2011; Cox-2016; Jarab-2012
14) Ahmad Sharoni-2018, Cox-2016, Jayasuriya-2015, Nishita-2013, Pauley-2016
15) Alghafri-2018, Cox-2016, Glasgow-2006a, Jarab-2012, Jayasuriya-2015, Thoolen-2009, Vanroy-2017
16) Sriram-2011, Tang-2012
17) Ahmad Sharoni-2018, Cox-2016, Tan-2011
18) Jarab-2012
19) Cox-2016, Jarab-2012, Thoolen-2009
20) Bogner-2010, Jarab-2012, Tan-2011, Thoolen-2009
21) Cox-2016; Glasgow-2006; Lamers-2011; Stuckey-2009
22) Adachi-2013, Alghafri-2018, Ayadurai-2018, barratt-2008, Bogner-2010, Bogner-2012, Cho-2011, Cox-2016, Franciosi-2011, Glasgow-2006, Glasgow-2006a, Jarab-2012, Jayasuriya-2015, Kim-2009, Kim-2015, Kirk-2004, Krass-2007, Lamers-2011, Li-2017, Liou-2014, McKee-2011, Nishita-2013, Odnoletkova-2016, Osborn-2010, Rosal-2005, Salinero-Fort-2011, Sriram-2011, Stuckey-2009, Tang-2012, Trento-2008, Wattana-2007, McMurray-2002, Saengtipbovorn-2015
23) Cox-2016, Lamers-2011, Nishita-2013, Sriram-2011, Trento-2008, Wattana-2007
24) Thoolen-2009
|
