| 1. 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 |
| 364.5898148148147 [12.412037037037035, 2322.8138888888884] |
Moderate |
It likely results in a large increase in all cause admission |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
1.0 |
1.89 [0.18, 3.61] |
Low |
| 2. 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 |
| 0.91 [0.23, 1.58] |
Very Low |
It may increase adherence to medication or other treatment but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
38 |
0.91 [0.23, 1.58] |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
Low |
| 3. 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 |
| 1.24 [-0.16, 2.64] |
Very low |
It may increase quality of life but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
38 |
1.24 [-0.16, 2.64] |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
Footnotes per outcome:
1) a)We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious risk of bias ; b)Number of studies included in the network: 45 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 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=20); 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 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 risk of bias, serious imprecision; b)Number of studies included in the network: 81 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=20); 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 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
References of studies informing direct evidence:
2) Barnason-2010
3) Barnason-2010
|
