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 |
2177.0 [-1508.4, 5862.4] |
Very low |
It may decrease steps but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
41 |
2177.0 [-1508.4, 5862.4] |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
2. 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 |
-0.13 [-0.6, 0.33] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in stress levels |
1 |
72 |
-0.13 [-0.6, 0.33] |
Moderate |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
3. 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 |
-0.57 [-1.1, -0.04] |
Very Low |
It may improve dietary habits but the evidence is very uncertain |
2 |
82 |
-0.57 [-1.1, -0.04] |
Very low |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
4. 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 |
1.16 [-0.13, 2.44] |
Very low |
It may increase physical activity but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
17 |
1.16 [-0.13, 2.44] |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
5. 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 |
-0.52 [-1.09, 0.05] |
Very Low |
It may decrease depression but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
65 |
-0.44 [-1.05, 0.17] |
Low |
1.0 |
-1.14 [-2.84, 0.56] |
Low |
6. 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 |
0.23 [-0.24, 0.7] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in body fat |
2 |
89 |
0.23 [-0.24, 0.7] |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
7. 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 |
1.27 [-0.16, 2.71] |
Very low |
It may result in a large increase in eating self-efficacy |
1 |
100 |
1.27 [-0.16, 2.71] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
8. 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 |
0.53 [-0.21, 1.26] |
Low |
It may result in a slight increase in Coping with the disease |
1 |
72 |
0.53 [-0.21, 1.26] |
Moderate |
0.0 |
N/A |
Moderate |
9. 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 |
-3.05 [-4.85, -1.25] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in waist size |
5 |
495 |
-3.42 [-5.28, -1.55] |
Low |
2.0 |
1.71 [-5.01, 8.43] |
Low |
10. 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 |
-0.76 [-3.43, 1.91] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on diastolic pressure but the evidence is very uncertain |
2 |
379 |
-0.91 [-4.0, 2.17] |
Low |
2.0 |
-0.3 [-5.6, 5.0] |
Very low |
11. 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 |
-3.05 [-7.29, 1.19] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on systolic pressure but the evidence is very uncertain |
2 |
379 |
-2.68 [-7.74, 2.39] |
Very low |
2.0 |
-3.93 [-11.69, 3.83] |
Very low |
12. 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 |
-1.37 [-2.08, -0.67] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on Body mass index |
7 |
692 |
-1.79 [-2.59, -0.99] |
Very low |
3.0 |
0.18 [-1.36, 1.72] |
Very low |
13. 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 |
-3.09 [-4.89, -1.3] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in weight |
6 |
398 |
-2.86 [-5.06, -0.66] |
Low |
3.0 |
-3.57 [-6.68, -0.45] |
Low |
Footnotes per outcome:
1) 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: 31 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=22); 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 6 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 2) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious imprecision and 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=37); 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 6 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, serious inconsistency, and serious imprecision;b) Number of studies included in the network: 33 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 2 RCT(s) (N=47); 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 3-4 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 and serious imprecision; b) Number of studies included in the network: 55 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=8); 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. 5) a) Number of studies included in the network: 13 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=39); 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 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 6) 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: 2 RCT(s) (N=45); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 0 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 Baria-2014, Rshikesan-2016 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 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=53); 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. 8) 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: 14RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=37); 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 6 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; b) Number of studies included in the network: 178 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 5 RCT(s) (N=280); 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 3-24 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, very serious risk of bias, and serious imprecision; b)Number of studies included in the network: 112 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 2 RCT(s) (N=220); 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 12-24 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,very serious inconsistency, and serious imprecision;b)Number of studies included in the network: 122 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 2 RCT(s) (N=220); 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 12-24 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 inconsistency; b)Number of studies included in the network: 222 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 7 RCT(s) (N=376); 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 2-24 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; b) Number of studies included in the network: 329 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 6 RCT(s) (N=227); 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 2-12 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
References of studies informing direct evidence:
1) Harrigan-2016 2) Rshikesan-2016 3) Baria-2014, Kristeller-2014 4) Baria-2014 5) Kristeller-2014 6) Baria-2014, Rshikesan-2016 7) Kristeller-2014 8) Rshikesan-2016 9) Appel-2011,Baria-2014,Harrigan-2016,Melchart-2017,Rshikesan-2016 10) Appel-2011, Melchart-2017 11) Appel-2011,Melchart-2017 12) Appel-2011, Baria-2014, Christaki-2013, Kristeller-2014, Luley-2011b, Melchart-2017, Rshikesan-2016 13) Baria-2014, Christaki-2013, Harrigan-2016, Luley-2011b, Melchart-2017, Rshikesan-2016
|