| 1. Healthy nutrition habits/personalized nutrition / Fiber consumption |
| 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 |
| 0.72 [0.41, 1.03] |
Very low |
It may increase Fiber consumption but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
178 |
0.72 [0.41, 1.03] |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
| 2. Healthy nutrition habits/personalized nutrition / Fruit and vegetable consumption |
| 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 [0.19, 0.81] |
Very Low |
It may have little to no effect on Fruit and vegetable consumption but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
178 |
0.5 [0.19, 0.81] |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
| 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 |
| 0.65 [-0.15, 1.45] |
Very low |
It may result in a slight increase in physical activity |
1 |
178 |
0.65 [-0.15, 1.45] |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
| 4. 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 |
| -0.97 [-4.32, 2.38] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in waist size |
1 |
178 |
-0.97 [-4.32, 2.38] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
| 5. 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 |
| -0.61 [-2.2, 0.98] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in Body mass index |
1 |
178 |
-0.61 [-2.2, 0.98] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
| 6. 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 |
| -1.53 [-5.45, 2.39] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in weight |
1 |
178 |
-1.53 [-5.45, 2.39] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
Footnotes per outcome:
1) 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: 8 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=112); 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 biasserious imprecision; b) Number of studies included in the network: 15 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=112); 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 and serious imprecision;b) Number of studies included in the network: 55 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=112); 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; b) Number of studies included in the network: 178 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=112); 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.
5) 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: 1 RCT(s) (N=112); 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 the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias; b) Number of studies included in the network: 329 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=112); 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) Mitchell-2015
2) Mitchell-2015
3) Mitchell-2015
4) Mitchell-2015
5) Mitchell-2015
6) Mitchell-2015
|
