| 1. 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 |
| 2.36 [0.64, 4.08] |
Low |
It may result in a large increase in self-efficacy |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
NA |
1.0 |
2.36 [0.64, 4.08] |
Low |
| 2. 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 |
| 0.26 [-0.54, 1.07] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in physical activity |
1 |
47 |
0.26 [-0.54, 1.07] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
| 3. Lipid profile / LDL-Cholesterol |
| 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 |
| 1.0 [-7.07, 9.07] |
Moderate |
It likely results in little to no difference in LDL levels (mg/dL) |
1 |
341 |
1.0 [-7.07, 9.07] |
Moderate |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
| 4. 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 |
| 1.84 [-0.57, 4.25] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in waist size (cm) |
1 |
0 |
1.84 [-0.57, 4.25] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
| 5. Blood-pressure / 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 |
| 2.62 [-2.32, 7.56] |
Very low |
It may increase systolic blood pressure levels (mmHg) but the evidence is very uncertain |
2 |
359 |
2.62 [-2.32, 7.56] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
| 6. 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 |
| 1.52 [-0.64, 3.68] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in weight (kgs) |
1 |
0 |
1.52 [-0.64, 3.68] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
| 7. HbA1C / Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) |
| 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 |
| -0.62 [-1.05, -0.19] |
Very low |
It may decrease HbA1C levels (%) but the evidence is very uncertain |
2 |
357 |
-0.59 [-1.03, -0.14] |
Very low |
1.0 |
-1.1 [-2.68, 0.48] |
Very low |
| 8. Lipid profile / Triglycerides |
| 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 |
| -0.97 [-1.52, -0.42] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in triglycerides (mmol/L) |
1 |
0 |
-0.97 [-1.52, -0.42] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
| 9. Lipid profile / Total cholesterol |
| 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 |
| -39.83 [-48.53, -31.13] |
Low |
It may result in a slight decrease in total cholesterol (mg/dL) |
1 |
0 |
-39.83 [-48.53, -31.13] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
| 10. Blood-pressure / 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 |
| 0.56 [-2.95, 4.07] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in diastolic blood pressure(mmHg) but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
0 |
0.56 [-2.95, 4.07] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
Footnotes per outcome:
1) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias; b) Number of studies included in the network: 55 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.
2) 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: 64 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=23); 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.
3) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious risk of bias; b) Number of studies included in the network: 171 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=170); 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 12 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
4) a) Number of studies included in the network: 81 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=202); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 0 comparison(s). The range of follow up was from 1 to 36 months for the studies included in the whole network. The range of follow-up was 18 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 and very serious risk of bias
5) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious imprecision and very serious risk of bias; b) Number of studies included in the network: 233 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 2 RCT(s) (N=182); 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 12-18 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
6) a) Number of studies included in the network: 145 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=202); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 0 comparison(s). The range of follow up was from 1 to 51 months for the studies included in the whole network. The range of follow-up was 18 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
7) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious imprecision, very serious risk of bias and serious inconsistency; b) Number of studies included in the network: 463 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 2 RCT(s) (N=180); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 1 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 12-18 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
8) a) Number of studies included in the network: 171 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=202); 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 18 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
9) a) Number of studies included in the network: 176 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=202); 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 18 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
10) a) Number of studies included in the network: 211 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=202); 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 18 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 and very serious imprecision
References of studies informing direct evidence:
2) Liebreich-2009
3) Mourao-2013
4) Eakin-2013
5) Crowley-2013Eakin-2013
6) Eakin-2013
7) Crowley-2013, Eakin-2013
8) Eakin-2013
9) Eakin-2013
10) Eakin-2013
|
