1. Adherence to medication or other treatment / Adherence to medication |
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 |
0.63 [0.2, 1.06] |
Very Low |
It may increase adherence to medication or other treatment but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
86 |
0.63 [0.2, 1.06] |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
Low |
2. 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 |
0.44 [-0.86, 1.73] |
Very Low |
It may result in little to no difference in self-efficacy but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
27 |
0.4 [-1.15, 1.96] |
Low |
1.0 |
0.51 [-1.83, 2.85] |
Low |
3. Hospital admissions / HF-related hospital admissions |
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 |
2.3728699551569523 [-8.59047085201795, 22.795739910313927] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect in HF-related hospital admissions but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
0 |
0.11 [-0.52, 0.73] |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
4. 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 |
0.49 [-0.27, 1.25] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in knowledge but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
55 |
0.49 [-0.27, 1.25] |
Low |
1.0 |
N/A |
NA |
5. Hospital admissions / All-cause hospital admissions |
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 |
7.907407407407412 [-35.84907407407406, 117.762037037037] |
Very low |
It may increase all cause admission but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
0 |
0.12 [-0.81, 1.04] |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
6. Mortality / All causes of mortality |
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 |
-105.17465564738279 [-128.76804407713485, -43.147107438016484] |
Low |
It may result in a large decrease in mortality |
1 |
106 |
0.26447726129982396 [0.1012664618538834, 0.697676326071031] |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
Footnotes per outcome:
1) a)We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias, serious imprecision; b)Number of studies included in the network: 8 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=44); 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 12 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, very serious imprecision; b)Number of studies included in the network: 38 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=14); 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 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, very 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=0); 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 24 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, very serious risk of bias, and serious imprecision; b)Number of studies included in the network: 16 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=26); 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 8 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 very serious imprecision; b)Number of studies included in the network: 45 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=0); 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 12 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 6) a)We rated down due to very serious risk of bias; b)Number of studies included in the network: 82 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=52); 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 12 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
References of studies informing direct evidence:
1) Granger-2015 2) Cossette-2016 3) Liljeroos-2015 4) Stamp-2016 5) Stromberg-2003 6) Stromberg-2003
|