1. 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 |
0.41 [-0.11, 0.93] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in Fruit and vegetable consumption |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
1.0 |
0.41 [-0.11, 0.93] |
Low |
2. Self-monitoring (Including self-recording) / Self-Monitoring Weight |
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 |
1.6999 [1.2329, 2.1669] |
Low |
It may result in a large increase in weight self-monitoring |
1 |
97 |
1.6999 [1.2329, 2.1669] |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
3. 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 |
-0.09 [-0.43, 0.25] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in depression |
3 |
212 |
-0.09 [-0.43, 0.25] |
Low |
1.0 |
N/A |
NA |
4. 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 |
0.36 [-0.15, 0.87] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in self-efficacy |
1 |
60 |
0.36 [-0.15, 0.87] |
Low |
N/A |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
5. 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 |
-0.56 [-0.79, -0.33] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in body fat |
2 |
438 |
-0.68 [-0.94, -0.41] |
Low |
4.0 |
-0.2 [-0.67, 0.27] |
Low |
6. 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 |
0.2 [-0.32, 0.71] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on Fiber consumption but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
59 |
0.2 [-0.32, 0.71] |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
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 |
0.06 [-0.28, 0.4] |
Moderate |
It likely result in little to no difference in physical activity |
3 |
597 |
0.11 [-0.35, 0.57] |
Moderate |
8.0 |
0.01 [-0.5, 0.51] |
Low |
8. 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 |
-0.03 [-0.5, 0.43] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in exercise self-efficacy |
2 |
156 |
-0.37 [-0.93, 0.18] |
Very low |
3.0 |
0.77 [-0.08, 1.63] |
Low |
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 |
-0.19 [-0.64, 0.27] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in Coping with the disease |
2 |
159 |
-0.07 [-0.58, 0.45] |
Low |
0.0 |
-0.63 [-1.61, 0.35] |
Very low |
10. 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 |
857.46 [-466.59, 2181.51] |
Low |
It may result in a slight decrease in steps |
7 |
962 |
380.63 [-994.73, 1755.99] |
Moderate |
3.0 |
6892.75 [1999.65, 11785.84] |
Moderate |
11. 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 |
Very Low |
It may increase Carbohydrates but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
59 |
N/A |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
12. 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 [-0.63, -0.18] |
Very Low |
It may result in little to no difference on dietary habits but the evidence is very uncertain |
4 |
694 |
-0.44 [-0.68, -0.21] |
Low |
1.0 |
0.0 [-0.77, 0.76] |
Low |
13. 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 |
0.05 [-0.34, 0.44] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in stress levels |
1 |
104 |
0.05 [-0.34, 0.44] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
14. 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 |
-0.76 [-1.0, -0.51] |
Low |
It may result in a slight increase in consumption of fat |
2 |
264 |
-0.81 [-1.06, -0.56] |
Low |
0.0 |
0.12 [-0.88, 1.12] |
Low |
15. 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 |
-0.16 [-1.08, 0.76] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on eating Self-efficacy but the evidence is very uncertain |
2 |
156 |
-0.31 [-1.34, 0.71] |
Very low |
3.0 |
0.44 [-1.59, 2.46] |
Low |
16. 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 |
0.3 [-0.02, 0.63] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in quality of life |
2 |
277 |
0.16 [-0.22, 0.54] |
Moderate |
4.0 |
0.66 [0.06, 1.26] |
Low |
17. 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 |
-1.28 [-2.67, 0.1] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on diastolic pressure but the evidence is very uncertain |
7 |
1606 |
-1.53 [-3.36, 0.31] |
Low |
6.0 |
-0.96 [-3.07, 1.14] |
Very low |
18. 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 |
-1.86 [-3.98, 0.25] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on systolic pressure but the evidence is very uncertain |
7 |
1606 |
-1.56 [-4.5, 1.37] |
Very low |
7.0 |
-2.19 [-5.24, 0.87] |
Very low |
19. 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 |
-2.94 [-3.73, -2.15] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in waist size |
18 |
3241 |
-2.94 [-3.89, -1.99] |
Low |
10.0 |
-2.94 [-4.35, -1.52] |
Low |
20. 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 |
-1.18 [-1.53, -0.84] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in Body mass index |
18 |
2977 |
-1.21 [-1.63, -0.79] |
Low |
15.0 |
-1.14 [-1.73, -0.55] |
Low |
21. 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 |
-3.12 [-3.82, -2.41] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on weight but the evidence is very uncertain |
20 |
3417 |
-2.68 [-3.67, -1.68] |
Low |
16.0 |
-3.56 [-4.56, -2.56] |
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: 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). 2) a) This estimate is a result of a pairwise meta-analysis (1 RCT, N= 97); b) We rated down the certainty of the evidence due to very serious risk of bias. 3) a) Number of studies included in the network: 13 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 3 RCT(s) (N=97); 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 3 - 6 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.; b) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias 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: 12 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. 5) 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=236); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 4 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 Mason-2013, Nakade-2012 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 risk of bias and serious imprecision; b) Number of studies included in the network: 8 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=29); 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. 7) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to, ;b) Number of studies included in the network: 55 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 3 RCT(s) (N=301); 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 6-12 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; b) Number of studies included in the network: 16 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 2 RCT(s) (N=77); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 3 comparison(s). The range of follow up was from 1 to 9 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. 9) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious risk of bias,serious inconsistency, ,, serious imprecision;b) Number of studies included in the network: 14RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 2 RCT(s) (N=71); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 4 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. 10) 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: 31 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 7 RCT(s) (N=487); 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 3-12 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 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=29); 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. 12) 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: 4 RCT(s) (N=343); 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 6-12 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: 7 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=43); 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. 14) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias; b) Number of studies included in the network: 20 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 2 RCT(s) (N=147); 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 6-12 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, serious inconsistency, and very serious imprecision;b)Number of studies included in the network: 12 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 2 RCT(s) (N=77); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 3 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. 16) 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: 22 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 2 RCT(s) (N=129); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 4 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 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: 7 RCT(s) (N=795); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 6 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 3-15 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 18) a)Number of studies included in the network: 122 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 7 RCT(s) (N=795); 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 3-15 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 19) 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: 18 RCT(s) (N=1657); 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 3-36 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 20) 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: 18 RCT(s) (N=1512); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 15 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 3-36 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 21) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to 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: 20 RCT(s) (N=1733); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 16 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.
References of studies informing direct evidence:
2) Crane-2015 3) Barnes-2014Grilo-2013Williams-2018 4) Barnes-2014 5) Mason-2013, Nakade-2012 6) Jelsma-2018 7) Anderson - 2014, Mason-2013, Williams-2018 8) Crane-2015; Jelsma-2018 9) Barnes-2014, Williams-2018 10) Anderson - 2014, Hagberg-2014,Helena-2013, Jelsma-2018, Mason-2013, Nakade-2012, Sjogren-2012 11) Jelsma-2018 12) Anderson - 2014, Crane-2015, Jelsma-2018, Nakade-2012 13) Williams-2018 14) Jelsma-2018, Mason-2013 15) Crane-2015; Jelsma-2018 16) Wang-2017,Williams-2018 17) Anderson - 2014, Barnes-2014, Christian-2011, Sjogren-2012, Wang-2017, Wekker-2018, Xiao-2013 18) Anderson - 2014, Barnes-2014, Christian-2011, Sjogren-2012, Wang-2017, Wekker-2018, Xiao-2013 19) Anderson - 2014,Christian-2011,Cleo-2018,Crane-2015,Greaves-2008,Helena-2013,Karintrakul-2017,Lin-2014,Mason-2013,Methapatara-2011,Nakade-2012,Ruusunen-2012,Sjogren-2012,Teeriniemi-2018,Wang-2017,Wekker-2018,Williams-2018,Xiao-2013 20) Anderson - 2014, Cleo-2018, Grilo-2013, Hagberg-2014, Helena-2013, JiangX-2017b, Karintrakul-2017, Lin-2014, Mason-2013, Methapatara-2011, Nakade-2012, Ruusunen-2012, Sjogren-2012, Teeriniemi-2018, Wang-2017, Wekker-2018, Williams-2018, Xiao-2013 21) Anderson - 2014, Barnes-2014, Christian-2011, Cleo-2018, Crane-2015, Hagberg-2014, Helena-2013, Karintrakul-2017, Lin-2014, Mason-2013, Methapatara-2011, Nakade-2012, Ruusunen-2012, Sjogren-2012, Teeriniemi-2018, Wachsberg-2014, Wang-2017, Wekker-2018, Williams-2018, Xiao-2013
|