1. 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 |
-0.42 [-0.94, 0.09] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on physical activity but the evidence is very uncertain |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
4.0 |
-0.42 [-0.94, 0.09] |
Very low |
2. 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 |
-0.01 [-5.22, 5.21] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in systolic pressure |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
3.0 |
-0.01 [-5.22, 5.21] |
Low |
3. 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 |
-1673.18 [-7667.72, 4321.37] |
Very low |
It may increase steps but the evidence is very uncertain |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
1.0 |
-1673.18 [-7667.72, 4321.37] |
Low |
4. 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 |
-0.37 [-3.63, 2.9] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on diastolic pressure but the evidence is very uncertain |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
2.0 |
-0.37 [-3.63, 2.9] |
Low |
5. 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 |
0.86 [0.43, 1.28] |
Very low |
It may increase self-efficacy |
1 |
94 |
0.86 [0.43, 1.28] |
Low |
N/A |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
6. 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 |
-0.08 [-2.34, 2.18] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on waist size |
1 |
133 |
0.8 [-2.52, 4.12] |
Low |
7.0 |
-0.84 [-3.92, 2.24] |
Low |
7. 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 |
0.28 [-0.32, 0.88] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on Body mass index |
4 |
425 |
-0.82 [-1.83, 0.2] |
Low |
10.0 |
0.87 [0.13, 1.61] |
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 |
1.06 [-0.7, 2.83] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on weight but the evidence is very uncertain |
2 |
270 |
1.71 [-1.47, 4.88] |
Very low |
8.0 |
0.78 [-1.34, 2.9] |
Low |
Footnotes per outcome:
1) 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: 4 comparison(s). 2) a)We rated down the certainty of evidence due to, serious risk of biad and very serious imprecision;b)Number of studies included in the network: 8 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. 3) 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: 1 comparison(s). The range of follow up was from 1 to 24 months for the studies included in the whole network. 4) a)We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious risk of bias, very serious imprecision; b)Number of studies included in the network: 112 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 96 months for the studies included in the whole network. The range of follow-up was 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 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=47); 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 1 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 of risk of bias and serious incoherence; b) Number of studies included in the network: 178 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=65); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 7 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. 7) a)We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias and serious incoherence, and serious incoherence; b)Number of studies included in the network: 222 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 4 RCT(s) (N=209); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 10 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. 8) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious of risk of bias and serious inconsistency; b) Number of studies included in the network: 329 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 2 RCT(s) (N=134); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 8 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 1-12 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
References of studies informing direct evidence:
5) Hosseini-Amiri-2018 6) Teeriniemi-2018 7) Hosseini-Amiri-2018, Krouni-2017, Mcgorrian-2015, Teeriniemi-2018 8) Hosseini-Amiri-2018, Teeriniemi-2018
|