1. 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 |
-0.1 [-0.91, 0.7] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in physical activity |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
NA |
1.0 |
-0.1 [-0.91, 0.7] |
Low |
2. 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 |
0.68 [-0.59, 1.96] |
Very low |
It may result in a slight increase in self-efficacy |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
NA |
1.0 |
0.68 [-0.59, 1.96] |
Low |
3. Knowledge |
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 [-1.33, 1.21] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in knowledge but the evidence is very uncertain |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
NA |
1.0 |
-0.06 [-1.33, 1.21] |
Low |
4. 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 |
1.06 [0.12, 2.0] |
Low |
It may improve dietary habits |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
1.0 |
1.06 [0.12, 2.0] |
Low |
5. Self-management behaviours / Foot care |
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 |
0.94 [0.22, 1.67] |
Very low |
It may increase foot care self-management but the evidence is very uncertain |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
NA |
1.0 |
0.94 [0.22, 1.67] |
Low |
6. Self-management behaviours |
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 [-1.46, 1.86] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in self-management behaviours |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
NA |
1.0 |
0.2 [-1.46, 1.86] |
Low |
7. Self-monitoring / Glucose self-monitoring |
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 |
-0.59 [-1.85, 0.67] |
Very low |
It may decrease glucose self-monitoring but the evidence is very uncertain |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
NA |
1.0 |
-0.59 [-1.85, 0.67] |
Low |
8. 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 |
-4.94 [-8.52, -1.36] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in weight (kgs) but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
70 |
-4.1 [-8.14, -0.06] |
Low |
1.0 |
-8.01 [-15.75, -0.28] |
Low |
9. 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 |
-0.19 [-0.62, 0.25] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in HbA1C levels (%) but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
80 |
-0.2 [-0.83, 0.43] |
Low |
2.0 |
-0.18 [-0.77, 0.42] |
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: 64 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: 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. 3) a) Number of studies included in the network: 43 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). The range of follow up was from 2 to 60 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 very serious imprecision and serious risk of bias 4) a) 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: 1 comparison(s). The range of follow up was from 1 to 24 months for the studies included in the whole network; b) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious imprecision 5) 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: 26 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 2 to 24 months for the studies included in the whole network. 6) a) Number of studies included in the network: 40 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 0 RCT(s); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 1 comparison(s) The range of follow up was from 1 to 12 months for the studies included in the whole network ; 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 very serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision; b) Number of studies included in the network: 29 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 2 to 24 months for the studies included in the whole network. 8) a) Number of studies included in the network: 145 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=34); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 1 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 12 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 serious imprecision 9) 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: 463 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=39); 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 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
References of studies informing direct evidence:
8) Holmen-2014 9) Holmen-2014
|