| 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 |
| 1358.03 [-2826.59, 5542.65] |
Very low |
It may decrease steps but the evidence is very uncertain |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
3.0 |
1358.03 [-2826.59, 5542.65] |
Low |
| 2. 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 |
| 5.42 [4.63, 6.2] |
Low |
It may result in a large increase in Fiber consumption |
1 |
120 |
5.42 [4.63, 6.2] |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
| 3. Healthy nutrition habits/personalized nutrition / Carbohydrates |
| 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 |
| N/A |
Low |
It may result in a large increase in Carbohydrates |
1 |
120 |
N/A |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
| 4. 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 |
| 0.0 [-0.36, 0.36] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in consumption of fat |
1 |
120 |
0.0 [-0.36, 0.36] |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
| 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 |
| 0.03 [-1.78, 1.84] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on diastolic pressure but the evidence is very uncertain |
4 |
523 |
0.41 [-2.27, 3.09] |
Very low |
5.0 |
-0.29 [-2.75, 2.17] |
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 |
| -1.14 [-4.06, 1.77] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in systolic pressure |
4 |
523 |
-0.58 [-4.88, 3.71] |
Low |
5.0 |
-1.62 [-5.58, 2.34] |
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 |
| -2.52 [-4.1, -0.95] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in waist size |
3 |
378 |
-2.26 [-4.43, -0.09] |
Low |
6.0 |
-2.82 [-5.1, -0.53] |
Low |
| 8. 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 |
| -3.16 [-4.45, -1.87] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on weight but the evidence is very uncertain |
5 |
773 |
-2.9 [-4.89, -0.92] |
Very low |
9.0 |
-3.36 [-5.06, -1.65] |
Low |
| 9. 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 |
| -1.19 [-1.89, -0.49] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on Body mass index |
3 |
522 |
-1.47 [-2.47, -0.46] |
Very low |
6.0 |
-0.92 [-1.91, 0.07] |
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: 3 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 very serious risk of bias; b) Number of studies included in the network: 8 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=60); 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.
3) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias; b) Number of studies included in the network: 12 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=60); 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; b) Number of studies included in the network: 20 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=60); 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.
5) a)We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias, serious inconsistency; b)Number of studies included in the network: 112 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 4 RCT(s) (N=300); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 5 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 1-9 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
6) a)Number of studies included in the network: 122 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 4 RCT(s) (N=300); 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 1-9 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
7) 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: 3 RCT(s) (N=233); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 6 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 6-24 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
8) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious of risk of bias and very serious of inconsistency; b) Number of studies included in the network: 329 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 5 RCT(s) (N=469); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 9 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 1-24 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
9) a)We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias and very serious inconsistency; b)Number of studies included in the network: 222 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 3 RCT(s) (N=305); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 6 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 9-24 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
References of studies informing direct evidence:
2) Esposito-2003
3) Esposito-2003
4) Esposito-2003
5) Daniali-2017, Davis-2013, Samuel-Hodge-2013, Sniehotta-2011
6) Daniali-2017,Davis-2013,Samuel-Hodge-2013,Sniehotta-2011
7) Davis-2013,Sniehotta-2011,Teeriniemi-2018
8) Daniali-2017, Esposito-2003, Samuel-Hodge-2013, Sniehotta-2011, Teeriniemi-2018
9) Davis-2013, Esposito-2003, Teeriniemi-2018
|
