1. 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 |
-0.4 [-0.97, 0.18] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in dietary habits |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
1.0 |
-0.4 [-0.97, 0.18] |
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 |
-0.04 [-0.46, 0.39] |
Moderate |
It likely results in little to no difference on Fiber consumption |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
1.0 |
-0.04 [-0.46, 0.39] |
Low |
3. 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 |
-0.06 [-0.58, 0.45] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in Fruit and vegetable consumption |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
1.0 |
-0.06 [-0.58, 0.45] |
Low |
4. 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 |
-0.85 [-1.59, -0.1] |
Very Low |
It may decrease depression but the evidence is very uncertain |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
2.0 |
-0.85 [-1.59, -0.1] |
Low |
5. 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 slight increase in Carbohydrates |
0 |
0 |
N/A |
N/A |
1.0 |
-0.52 [-1.25, 0.22] |
Low |
6. 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 |
-0.18 [-0.47, 0.11] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in consumption of fat |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
1.0 |
-0.18 [-0.47, 0.11] |
Low |
7. 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 |
0.64 [-0.24, 1.53] |
Very low |
It may result in a slight increase in physical activity |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
1.0 |
0.64 [-0.24, 1.53] |
Low |
8. Weight management / Body 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 |
-0.32 [-0.65, 0.02] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in body fat |
1 |
29 |
0.44 [-0.34, 1.23] |
Low |
3.0 |
-0.48 [-0.85, -0.12] |
Low |
9. 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 |
1262.0 [-2131.85, 4655.85] |
Very low |
It may decrease steps but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
79 |
1262.0 [-2131.85, 4655.85] |
High |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
10. 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 |
0.51 [-0.12, 1.14] |
Very low |
It may result in a slight increase in self-efficacy |
1 |
41 |
0.51 [-0.12, 1.14] |
Low |
N/A |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
11. 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 |
0.12 [-1.26, 1.5] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in eating self-efficacy |
1 |
537 |
0.12 [-1.26, 1.5] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
12. Quality of life-Physical and psychological functioning / Quality of Life |
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 |
0.12 [-0.63, 0.86] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in quality of life but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
41 |
0.12 [-0.63, 0.86] |
Low |
N/A |
NA [NA, NA] |
Low |
13. 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 |
-1.78 [-3.42, -0.15] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on diastolic pressure but the evidence is very uncertain |
5 |
747 |
-2.26 [-4.48, -0.04] |
Very low |
7.0 |
-1.22 [-3.64, 1.21] |
Low |
14. 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 |
-4.46 [-7.11, -1.82] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in systolic pressure |
5 |
740 |
-4.65 [-8.25, -1.05] |
Very low |
7.0 |
-4.25 [-8.14, -0.36] |
Low |
15. 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 |
-1.59 [-2.73, -0.46] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in waist size |
6 |
1014 |
-2.57 [-4.1, -1.04] |
Low |
8.0 |
-0.38 [-2.08, 1.31] |
Low |
16. 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 |
-0.91 [-1.37, -0.44] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in Body mass index |
8 |
1097 |
-1.14 [-1.8, -0.47] |
Low |
10.0 |
-0.69 [-1.34, -0.04] |
Low |
17. 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 |
-1.8 [-2.82, -0.79] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on weight but the evidence is very uncertain |
9 |
1227 |
-2.87 [-4.45, -1.29] |
Very low |
12.0 |
-1.06 [-2.38, 0.26] |
Low |
Footnotes per outcome:
1) 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: 1 comparison(s). 2) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious risk of bias; 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: 1 comparison(s). 3) 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: 15 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) Number of studies included in the network: 13 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 2 to 24 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.; b) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious imprecision 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: 12 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. The range of follow-up was 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 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). 7) 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: 1 comparison(s). 8) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias; b) Number of studies included in the network: 27 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=14); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 3 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 Aoike-2015 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 9) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to and very serious imprecision;b) Number of studies included in the network: 31 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=39); 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 13 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 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=23); 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 4 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 11) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias and very 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=267); 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 3 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 12) a)We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision; b)Number of studies included in the network: 22 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=23); 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 4 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 13) a)We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias, serious inconsistency, and serious imprecision; b)Number of studies included in the network: 112 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 5 RCT(s) (N=392); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 7 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 3-6 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 14) 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: 5 RCT(s) (N=388); 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 0 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 15) 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: 6 RCT(s) (N=517); 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 3-6 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 16) 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: 8 RCT(s) (N=566); 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 3-6 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 17) 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: 9 RCT(s) (N=631); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 12 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 3-6 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
References of studies informing direct evidence:
8) Aoike-2015 9) Bergman-2018 10) Plotnikoff-2010b 11) Kliemann-2017 12) Plotnikoff-2010b 13) Aoike-2015,Jane-2017,Kliemann-2017,Plotnikoff-2010b,Shin-2017 14) Aoike-2015, Jane-2017, Kliemann-2017, Plotnikoff-2010b, Shin-2017 15) Austel-2015,Cayir-2015,Jane-2017,Kliemann-2017,Plotnikoff-2010b,Shin-2017 16) Aoike-2015, Austel-2015, Cayir-2015, Chung-LM-2014, Jane-2017, Kliemann-2017, Plotnikoff-2010b, Shin-2017 17) Aoike-2015, Austel-2015, Cayir-2015, Chung-LM-2014, Gorin-2018, Jane-2017, Kliemann-2017, Plotnikoff-2010b, Shin-2017
|