| 1. 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 |
| -3.02 [-6.76, 0.72] |
Moderate |
It likely results in little to no difference on waist size |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
1.0 |
-3.02 [-6.76, 0.72] |
Low |
| 2. 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 |
| 0.51 [-0.65, 1.68] |
Very low |
It may result in a slight increase in physical activity |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
1.0 |
0.51 [-0.65, 1.68] |
Low |
| 3. Self-efficacy / Exercise Self-efficacy |
| 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 |
| -0.85 [-2.37, 0.67] |
Very low |
It may decrease exercise self-efficacy |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
NA |
1.0 |
-0.85 [-2.37, 0.67] |
Low |
| 4. 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 |
| -4.18 [-8.18, -0.19] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in weight |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
2.0 |
-4.18 [-8.18, -0.19] |
Low |
| 5. 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 |
| -0.43 [-1.05, 0.18] |
Very Low |
It may result in little to no difference on dietary habits but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
53 |
-0.62 [-1.27, 0.02] |
Low |
1.0 |
1.61 [-0.52, 3.74] |
Low |
| 6. Quality of life-Physical and psychological functioning / Stress |
| 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 |
| -0.58 [-1.1, -0.06] |
Very low |
It may decrease stress levels but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
60 |
-0.58 [-1.1, -0.06] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
| 7. Quality of life-Physical and psychological functioning / 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 |
| -0.53 [-1.04, -0.03] |
Very Low |
It may decrease depression but the evidence is very uncertain |
2 |
84 |
-0.53 [-1.04, -0.03] |
Low |
1.0 |
N/A |
NA |
| 8. Self-efficacy / Eating Self-efficacy |
| 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 |
| 1.08 [-0.36, 2.51] |
Very low |
It may increase eating self-efficacy |
1 |
97 |
1.08 [-0.36, 2.51] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
| 9. Coping with the disease |
| 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 |
| 0.54 [-0.38, 1.46] |
Very Low |
It may increase Coping with the disease but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
31 |
0.54 [-0.38, 1.46] |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
Low |
| 10. 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 |
| -1.62 [-3.05, -0.2] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on Body mass index |
1 |
97 |
0.51 [-2.97, 3.99] |
Low |
3.0 |
-2.06 [-3.62, -0.49] |
Low |
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: 178 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 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: 1 comparison(s).
3) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious imprecision and serious risk of bias; b) Number of studies included in the network: 16 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). The range of follow up was from 1 to 9 months for the studies included in the whole network.
4) 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: 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: 2 comparison(s). The range of follow up was from 1 to 24 months for the studies included in the whole network.
5) 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: 33 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=27); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 1 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 4 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 and very serious risk of bias; b) Number of studies included in the network: 7 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=30); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 0 comparison(s). The range of follow up was from 2 to 9 months for the studies included in the whole network. The range of follow-up was 2 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
7) a) Number of studies included in the network: 13 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 2 RCT(s) (N=41); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 1 comparison(s). The range of follow up was from 2 to 24 months for the studies included in the whole network. The range of follow-up was 2- 4 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.; b) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious imprecision and very serious risk of bias
8) 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: 12 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=50); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 0 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 4 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 serious imprecision;b) Number of studies included in the network: 14RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=14); 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 2 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
10) a)We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias, serious imprecision, and serious incoherence,serious incoherence, serious imprecision;b)Number of studies included in the network: 222 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=50); 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. The range of follow-up was 4 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
References of studies informing direct evidence:
5) Kristeller-2014
6) Cancian-2017
7) Cancian-2017Kristeller-2014
8) Kristeller-2014
9) Cancian-2017
10) Kristeller-2014
|
