1. Quality of life / Psychological distress |
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 |
-0.71 [-1.72, 0.3] |
Very low |
It may decrease psychological distress but the evidence is very uncertain |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
NA |
1.0 |
-0.71 [-1.72, 0.3] |
Low |
2. Hypoglycaemia |
NMA |
Direct |
Indirect |
Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
Interpretation of findings |
Number of studies |
Number of patients |
Relative effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
Number of comparisons informing indirect evidence |
Relative effects (95% CI) - Difference |
Certainty of the evidence |
240.04 [-2.87, 378.35] |
Very low |
It may increase hypoglycaemic events |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
NA |
1.0 |
1.75 [-0.83, 4.32] |
Very low |
3. 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 |
-0.12 [-1.25, 1.0] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in weight (kgs) but the evidence is very uncertain |
3 |
449 |
-0.13 [-1.94, 1.67] |
Very low |
3.0 |
-0.12 [-1.56, 1.32] |
Very low |
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 |
1.18 [0.5, 1.87] |
Very low |
It may increase self-efficacy |
1 |
81 |
0.84 [-0.18, 1.87] |
Low |
3.0 |
1.46 [0.53, 2.38] |
Low |
5. 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 |
0.71 [-0.28, 1.71] |
Low |
It may result in a slight increase in self-management behaviours |
1 |
465 |
0.0 [-1.19, 1.19] |
Low |
1.0 |
2.33 [0.53, 4.13] |
Low |
6. Adherence / Medication (or other treatment) adherence |
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 |
0.63 [-0.32, 1.59] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in adherence but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
98 |
-0.42 [-4.59, 3.74] |
Low |
3.0 |
0.69 [-0.29, 1.67] |
Very low |
7. 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 |
1.11 [0.46, 1.77] |
Very low |
It may increase knowledge but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
81 |
1.03 [-0.02, 2.08] |
Low |
2.0 |
1.17 [0.32, 2.02] |
Low |
8. 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 |
-0.42 [-0.55, -0.28] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in HbA1C levels (%) but the evidence is very uncertain |
19 |
2823 |
-0.39 [-0.55, -0.22] |
Low |
7.0 |
-0.48 [-0.73, -0.23] |
Low |
9. Experience of care / Care satisfaction |
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 |
2.21 [0.4, 4.02] |
Very low |
It may increase care satisfaction but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
272 |
2.21 [0.4, 4.02] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
10. 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 |
0.08 [-0.49, 0.65] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in body mass index (kg/m²) |
5 |
643 |
0.69 [-0.27, 1.65] |
Low |
5.0 |
-0.25 [-0.95, 0.45] |
Low |
11. 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 |
-0.29 [-1.7, 1.13] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in diastolic blood pressure (mmHg) |
3 |
437 |
1.58 [-0.92, 4.07] |
Low |
3.0 |
-1.16 [-2.88, 0.55] |
Low |
12. 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 |
-0.92 [-3.53, 1.69] |
Very low |
It may increase systolic blood pressure levels (mmHg) but the evidence is very uncertain |
4 |
531 |
0.61 [-3.82, 5.04] |
Low |
3.0 |
-1.73 [-4.97, 1.5] |
Low |
13. 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 |
-0.25 [-0.98, 0.48] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in glucose self-monitoring but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
272 |
0.17 [-0.8, 1.14] |
Low |
1.0 |
-0.82 [-1.94, 0.31] |
Moderate |
14. Lipid profile / HDL-Cholesterol (mmol) |
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 |
-0.87 [-2.95, 1.21] |
Very low |
It may increase HDL levels (mmol/L) but the evidence is very uncertain |
5 |
406 |
-0.35 [-3.26, 2.57] |
Very low |
2.0 |
-1.42 [-4.39, 1.56] |
Very low |
15. 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 |
-6.67 [-9.34, -4.0] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in LDL levels (mg/dL) |
5 |
406 |
-0.4 [-6.23, 5.42] |
Low |
2.0 |
-8.34 [-11.35, -5.34] |
Low |
16. 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 |
-6.03 [-11.61, -0.46] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in total cholesterol (mg/dL) |
4 |
352 |
-5.26 [-14.37, 3.86] |
Low |
2.0 |
-6.5 [-13.55, 0.55] |
Low |
17. 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 |
-0.04 [-0.33, 0.25] |
Moderate |
It likely results in little to no difference in triglycerides (mmol/L) |
5 |
406 |
-0.03 [-0.42, 0.37] |
Moderate |
2.0 |
-0.06 [-0.48, 0.36] |
Moderate |
18. 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 |
1.99 [1.65, 2.34] |
Low |
It may result in a large increase in foot care self-management |
1 |
272 |
1.99 [1.65, 2.34] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
19. 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 |
0.69 [0.25, 1.13] |
Very low |
It may increase physical activity |
1 |
54 |
0.25 [-0.54, 1.03] |
Low |
2.0 |
0.89 [0.36, 1.42] |
Low |
20. 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 |
0.28 [-0.38, 0.94] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in dietary habits |
1 |
54 |
0.28 [-0.38, 0.94] |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
21. 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 |
0.08 [-0.33, 0.49] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in quality of life |
3 |
837 |
0.05 [-0.42, 0.52] |
Low |
2.0 |
0.2 [-0.68, 1.07] |
Low |
22. 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 |
-3.31 [-6.54, -0.07] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in waist size (cm) |
1 |
111 |
-2.3 [-6.12, 1.52] |
Low |
2.0 |
-5.83 [-11.87, 0.22] |
Low |
Footnotes per outcome:
1) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious imprecision; b) Number of studies included in the network: 44 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. 2) a) We rated down the certainty of the evidence due to very serious imprecision; b) Number of studies included in the network: 11 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. 3) a) Number of studies included in the network: 145 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 3 RCT(s) (N=229); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 3 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 3-9 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 serious imprecision and 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: 1 RCT(s) (N=43); 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 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 5) a) Number of studies included in the network: 40 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=233); 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. 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 6) a) Number of studies included in the network: 55 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=48); 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 6 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 7) a) Number of studies included in the network: 43 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=43); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 2 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 3 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 8) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious imprecision, 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: 19 RCT(s) (N=1403); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 7 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 3-14 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 9) a) Number of studies included in the network: 13 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=132); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 0 comparison(s) The range of follow up was from 3 to 14 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 10) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias; b) Number of studies included in the network: 231 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 5 RCT(s) (N=313); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 5 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 3-12 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 11) a) Number of studies included in the network: 211 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 3 RCT(s) (N=223); 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 3-12 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 12) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias and serious incoherence; b) Number of studies included in the network: 233 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 4 RCT(s) (N=264); 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 3-12 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 13) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious incoherence, very serious risk of bias and serious imprecision; b) Number of studies included in the network: 29 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=132); 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 12 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 14) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious risk of bias and very serious inconsistency; b) Number of studies included in the network: 162 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 5 RCT(s) (N=206); 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 3- 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 serious risk of bias and serious inconsistency; b) Number of studies included in the network: 171 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 5 RCT(s) (N=206); 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 3-12 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 16) a) Number of studies included in the network: 176 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 4 RCT(s) (N=179); 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 3-12 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.; b) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious risk of bias and to serious inconsistency 17) a) Number of studies included in the network: 171 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 5 RCT(s) (N=206); 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 3-12 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.; b) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious risk of bias 18) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias; b) Number of studies included in the network: 26 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=132); 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 12 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 and 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=27); 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 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 20) a) Number of studies included in the network: 30 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=27); 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.; b) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias and serious imprecision 21) a) Number of studies included in the network: 81 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 3 RCT(s) (N=431); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 2 comparison(s). The range of follow up was from 1 to 60 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.; b) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias 22) a) Number of studies included in the network: 81 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=57); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 2 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 3 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
References of studies informing direct evidence:
3) Azizi-2016, Wild-2016, Yoo-2009 4) Goodarzi-2012 5) Sherifali-2011 6) Katalenich-2015 7) Goodarzi-2012 8) Alotaibi-2016, Avdal-2011, Azizi-2016, Forjuoh-2014, Goodarzi-2012, Hansen-2017, Hee-Sung-2007, Iljaz-2017, Kim-2007, Kwon-2004, Maljanian-2005, Piette-2001, Sherifali-2011, Wakefield-2014, Waki-2014, Wild-2016, Williams-2012, Yoo-2009, Young-2017 9) Piette-2001 10) Forjuoh-2014, Iljaz-2017, Waki-2014, Wild-2016, Yoo-2009 11) Iljaz-2017Waki-2014Wild-2016 12) Iljaz-2017Wakefield-2014Waki-2014Wild-2016 13) Piette-2001 14) Azizi-2016, Goodarzi-2012, Iljaz-2017, Waki-2014, Yoo-2009 15) Azizi-2016Goodarzi-2012Iljaz-2017Waki-2014Yoo-2009 16) Azizi-2016, Goodarzi-2012, Iljaz-2017, Yoo-2009 17) Azizi-2016, Goodarzi-2012, Iljaz-2017, Waki-2014, Yoo-2009 18) Piette-2001 19) Waki-2014 20) Waki-2014 21) Katalenich-2015, Maljanian-2005, Sherifali-2011 22) Yoo-2009
|