| 1. Physical Activity / Total steps |
| 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 |
| 376.82 [-4493.82, 5247.47] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on steps but the evidence is very uncertain |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
2.0 |
376.82 [-4493.82, 5247.47] |
Low |
| 2. Healthy nutrition habits/personalized nutrition / 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 |
| -0.2 [-0.66, 0.26] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in dietary habits |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
2.0 |
-0.2 [-0.66, 0.26] |
Low |
| 3. Healthy nutrition habits/personalized nutrition / 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 |
| -1.74 [-2.44, -1.04] |
Low |
It may result in a large increase in consumption of fat |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
1.0 |
-1.74 [-2.44, -1.04] |
Low |
| 4. 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 |
| 0.45 [-0.18, 1.08] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in physical activity |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
3.0 |
0.45 [-0.18, 1.08] |
Low |
| 5. Comorbidities managament / 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 |
| -2.13 [-5.05, 0.79] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in diastolic pressure |
1 |
143 |
-2.8 [-7.49, 1.89] |
Moderate |
2.0 |
-1.7 [-5.43, 2.03] |
Low |
| 6. Comorbidities managament / 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 |
| -3.09 [-7.59, 1.42] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in systolic pressure |
1 |
143 |
-6.1 [-13.72, 1.52] |
Moderate |
2.0 |
-1.46 [-7.05, 4.13] |
Low |
| 7. 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 |
| -1.23 [-3.4, 0.95] |
Moderate |
It likely results in little to no difference on waist size |
1 |
73 |
-1.49 [-5.18, 2.2] |
Moderate |
2.0 |
-1.09 [-3.78, 1.61] |
Low |
| 8. 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 |
| -1.34 [-2.13, -0.56] |
Moderate |
It likely results in little to no difference on Body mass index |
1 |
73 |
-0.47 [-2.08, 1.14] |
Moderate |
5.0 |
-1.62 [-2.53, -0.72] |
Low |
| 9. 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 |
| -3.31 [-5.43, -1.19] |
Moderate |
It likely results in little to no difference on weight |
1 |
143 |
-4.4 [-8.38, -0.42] |
Moderate |
5.0 |
-2.87 [-5.38, -0.36] |
Low |
Footnotes per outcome:
1) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious risk of bias, and very serious imprecision;b) Number of studies included in the network: 31 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 0 RCT(s) (N=0); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 2 comparison(s). The range of follow up was from 1 to 24 months for the studies included in the whole network.
2) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious risk of bias and serious imprecision;b) Number of studies included in the network: 33 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 0 RCT(s) (N=0); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 2 comparison(s).
3) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious risk of bias; b) Number of studies included in the network: 20 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).
4) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to, risk of bias and serious imprecision;b) Number of studies included in the network: 329 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 0 RCT(s) (N=0); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 3 comparison(s).
5) a)We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious risk of bias, and serious imprecision; b)Number of studies included in the network: 112 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=72); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 2 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 5 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
6) a)We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious imprecision;b)Number of studies included in the network: 122 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=72); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 2 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 5 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
7) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to 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=36); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 2 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 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
8) a)We rated down the certainty of evidence due to 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=36); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 5 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 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
9) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to 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=72); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 5 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 5 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
References of studies informing direct evidence:
5) Samuel-Hodge-2009a
6) Samuel-Hodge-2009a
7) Palmeira-2017
8) Palmeira-2017
9) Samuel-Hodge-2009a
|
