| 1. Coping with the disease, including depression and anxiety / Anxiety |
| 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 [-1.07, 0.17] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in anxiety |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
2.0 |
-0.45 [-1.07, 0.17] |
0.0 |
| 2. Coping with the disease, including depression and anxiety / 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 |
| -0.4 [-1.13, 0.33] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in depression |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
N/A |
-0.4 [-1.13, 0.33] |
Low |
| 3. Qualiy of life / Quality of life (generic instruments) |
| 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 |
| 5.37 [3.87, 6.86] |
Low |
It may result in a large increase in quality of life (generic instruments) |
1 |
60 |
5.37 [3.87, 6.86] |
Low |
N/A |
N/A |
NA |
| 4. COPD symptoms (short term) / Dyspnea or breathlessness |
| 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 [-1.68, 0.41] |
Low |
It may decrease dysnea but the evidence is very uncertain |
2 |
80 |
-0.64 [-1.68, 0.41] |
Low |
2.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
| 5. Physical activity / Muscle strenght / Exercise capacity |
| 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 [0.55, 2.62] |
Low |
It may result in a large increase in exercise capacity |
1 |
54 |
0.99 [-0.57, 2.55] |
Low |
0 |
2.05 [0.67, 3.42] |
Low |
| 6. Lung Function / FEV1 (L/min) - forced expiratory volume |
| 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 [-0.19, 0.35] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on FEV1 but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
26 |
0.08 [-0.19, 0.35] |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
| 7. Lung Function / FEV1/FVC ratio - forced expiratory volume in the first one second to the forced vital capacity of the lungs |
| 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 |
| 2.1 [-3.59, 7.79] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on FEV1/FVC but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
26 |
2.1 [-3.59, 7.79] |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
| 8. Qualiy of life / Quality of life (specific-disease instruments) |
| 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 |
| -0.95 [-1.78, -0.12] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on quality of life (specific-disease instruments) but the evidence is very uncertain |
2 |
80 |
-0.96 [-1.91, -0.02] |
Very low |
9.0 |
-0.92 [-2.66, 0.83] |
Low |
| 9. Lung Function / FEV1 (% pred) - forced expiratory volume |
| 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 |
| -1.27 [-9.14, 6.6] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on FEV1 (% pred) but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
54 |
-1.27 [-9.14, 6.6] |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
Footnotes per outcome:
1) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious of bias and serious imprecision; b) Number of studies included in the network: 25 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).
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: 30 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 0 RCT(s) (N=0); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: comparison(s).
3) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias; b) Number of studies included in the network: 25 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=30); 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 3 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, , ,,serious imprecision;b) Number of studies included in the network: 48 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 2 RCT(s) (N=39); 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 - 12 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
5) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias
6) 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: 30 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=13); 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 12 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 very imprecision;b) Number of studies included in the network: 18 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=13); 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 12 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 risk of bias and serious inconsistency, and serious imprecision;b) Number of studies included in the network: 8 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 2 RCT(s) (N=39); 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 3-12 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 imprecision;b) Number of studies included in the network: 32 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=26); 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 3 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
References of studies informing direct evidence:
3) Mozaffari-2018
4) Soler-2006Zhu-2018
5) Zhu-2018
6) Soler-2006
7) Soler-2006
8) Soler-2006,Zhu-2018
9) Zhu-2018
|
