| 1. Coping with the disease, including depression and anxiety / Anxiety |
| 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 [-0.87, -0.12] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on anxiety but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
114 |
-0.5 [-0.87, -0.12] |
Low |
N/A |
N/A |
NA |
| 2. Coping with the disease, including depression and anxiety / Depression |
| 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 [-0.98, 0.01] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on depression but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
114 |
-0.49 [-0.98, 0.01] |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
| 3. COPD symptoms (short term) / Dyspnea or breathlessness |
| 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 |
| 0.0 [-1.37, 1.37] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on dysnea but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
114 |
0.0 [-1.37, 1.37] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
| 4. Qualiy of life / Quality of life (specific-disease instruments) |
| 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 [-1.48, 0.91] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on quality of life (specific-disease instruments) but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
114 |
-0.28 [-1.48, 0.91] |
Low |
7.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
Footnotes per outcome:
1) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious risk of bias andserious imprecision; b) Number of studies included in the network: 25 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=59); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 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, and serious imprecision;b) Number of studies included in the network: 30 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 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.
3) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias, , ,,very imprecision;b) Number of studies included in the network: 48 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 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.
4) 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: 8 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 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) Hernandez-2015
2) Hernandez-2015
3) Hernandez-2015
4) Hernandez-2015
|
