1. 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 |
1.9 [-0.43, 4.22] |
Very low |
It may increase care satisfaction but the evidence is very uncertain |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
NA |
1.0 |
1.9 [-0.43, 4.22] |
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 |
-0.12 [-1.07, 0.82] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in physical activity |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
NA |
2.0 |
-0.12 [-1.07, 0.82] |
Low |
3. 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 |
-0.56 [-1.31, 0.2] |
Very low |
It may decrease psychological distress but the evidence is very uncertain |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
NA |
4.0 |
-0.56 [-1.31, 0.2] |
Low |
4. Dietary habits / 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 |
0.38 [-1.08, 1.83] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in fat consumption |
1 |
70 |
0.38 [-1.08, 1.83] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
5. 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 |
-10.65 [-3.78, 7.37] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in hypoglycaemic events |
2 |
144 |
-0.03 [-1.26, 1.21] |
Low |
1.0 |
-1.39 [-4.27, 1.49] |
Low |
6. Physical activity / Steps/day |
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 [-0.68, 0.27] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in steps per day |
1 |
77 |
-0.11 [-0.62, 0.39] |
Low |
1.0 |
-0.87 [-2.25, 0.51] |
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 |
0.59 [-0.05, 1.22] |
Very low |
It may increase knowledge but the evidence is very uncertain |
2 |
169 |
0.29 [-0.44, 1.02] |
Low |
2.0 |
1.5 [0.21, 2.78] |
Low |
8. 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 |
0.74 [0.12, 1.36] |
Very low |
It may decrease self-management behaviours but the evidence is very uncertain |
4 |
306 |
0.66 [0.02, 1.31] |
Very low |
1.0 |
1.53 [-0.59, 3.65] |
Very low |
9. 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 |
0.75 [-0.41, 1.91] |
Very low |
It may increase glucose self-monitoring but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
36 |
0.75 [-0.41, 1.91] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
10. 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 |
-0.45 [-0.6, -0.29] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in HbA1C levels (%) but the evidence is very uncertain |
16 |
2557 |
-0.46 [-0.66, -0.27] |
Low |
7.0 |
-0.42 [-0.68, -0.16] |
Low |
11. 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 |
0.33 [-1.41, 2.08] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in waist size (cm) |
4 |
961 |
0.21 [-1.69, 2.11] |
Low |
3.0 |
1.01 [-3.45, 5.48] |
Low |
12. 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 |
0.09 [-0.59, 0.77] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in foot care self-management but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
36 |
0.09 [-0.59, 0.77] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
13. 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 |
0.5 [-0.24, 1.24] |
Very low |
It may increase self-efficacy but the evidence is very uncertain |
2 |
136 |
0.5 [-0.24, 1.24] |
Very low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
14. 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 |
0.22 [-1.53, 1.97] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in weight (kgs) but the evidence is very uncertain |
3 |
211 |
-0.01 [-1.94, 1.93] |
Low |
3.0 |
1.22 [-2.88, 5.33] |
Low |
15. 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 |
0.08 [-0.69, 0.85] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in dietary habits |
1 |
36 |
0.08 [-0.69, 0.85] |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
16. 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 |
-4.05 [-7.07, -1.03] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in LDL levels (mg/dL) |
6 |
1806 |
-3.73 [-6.91, -0.55] |
Low |
1.0 |
-6.98 [-16.61, 2.65] |
Low |
17. 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 |
0.46 [-1.73, 2.64] |
Moderate |
It likely decreases HDL levels (mmol/L) |
7 |
608 |
0.22 [-2.03, 2.46] |
Moderate |
1.0 |
4.74 [-4.75, 14.23] |
Moderate |
18. 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 |
-6.77 [-11.95, -1.58] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in total cholesterol (mg/dL) but the evidence is very uncertain |
7 |
1939 |
-6.15 [-11.78, -0.52] |
Very low |
2.0 |
-10.18 [-23.44, 3.08] |
Very low |
19. 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 |
-0.37 [-1.27, 0.52] |
Very Low |
It may result in little to no difference in quality of life |
1 |
70 |
-0.37 [-1.27, 0.52] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
20. 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 |
0.15 [-0.17, 0.47] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in triglycerides (mmol/L) |
6 |
633 |
0.15 [-0.17, 0.47] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
21. 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 |
-0.09 [-1.13, 0.96] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in adherence |
2 |
36 |
-0.39 [-1.73, 0.95] |
Low |
1.0 |
0.39 [-1.28, 2.05] |
Low |
22. 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 |
-1.1 [-2.38, 0.17] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in diastolic blood pressure (mmHg) |
8 |
1896 |
-1.16 [-2.62, 0.3] |
Low |
4.0 |
-0.92 [-3.53, 1.69] |
Low |
23. 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 |
-2.39 [-4.7, -0.09] |
Low |
It may decrease systolic blood pressure levels (mmHg) |
8 |
1896 |
-2.15 [-4.86, 0.56] |
Low |
4.0 |
-3.05 [-7.45, 1.35] |
Low |
24. 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 |
-0.04 [-0.5, 0.42] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in body mass index (kg/m²) |
9 |
1395 |
0.02 [-0.48, 0.52] |
Low |
4.0 |
-0.38 [-1.61, 0.85] |
Low |
Footnotes per outcome:
1) a) Number of studies included in the network: 13 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 3 to 14 months for the studies included in the whole network; b) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias and serious imprecision 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: 0 RCT(s) (N=0); 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. 3) 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: 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: 4 comparison(s).The range of follow up was from 2 to 24 months for the studies included in the whole network. 4) a) Number of studies included in the network: 14 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=32); 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 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 very serious imprecision 5) a) We rated down the certainty of the evidence due to very serious risk of bias; b) Number of studies included in the network: 11 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 2 RCT(s) (N=144); 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 1-3 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: 7 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=44); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 1 comparison(s). The range of follow up was from 3 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. 7) a) Number of studies included in the network: 43 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 2 RCT(s) (N=75); 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 very serious risk of bias and serious imprecision 8) a) Number of studies included in the network: 40 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 4 RCT(s) (N=177); 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 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, serious inconsistency and serious imprecision 9) 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: 29 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=20); 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 3 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 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: 16 RCT(s) (N=1312); 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 2-12 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 11) a) Number of studies included in the network: 81 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 4 RCT(s) (N=489); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 3 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 3-12 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 very serious risk of bias 12) 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: 26 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=20); 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 3 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, serious inconsistency and serious imprecision; b) Number of studies included in the network: 55 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 2 RCT(s) (N=65); 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. 14) a) Number of studies included in the network: 145 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 3 RCT(s) (N=105); 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 3-18 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 15) a) Number of studies included in the network: 30 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=20); 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 very serious imprecision 16) 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: 6 RCT(s) (N=921); 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 3-12 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; b) Number of studies included in the network: 162 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 7 RCT(s) (N=341); 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 3-12 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 18) a) Number of studies included in the network: 176 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 7 RCT(s) (N=1000); 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 very serious risk of bias and to serious inconsistency 19) a) Number of studies included in the network: 81 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=32); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 0 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 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 imprecision and very serious risk of bias 20) a) Number of studies included in the network: 171 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 6 RCT(s) (N=290); 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 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 serious risk of bias and serious inconsistency 21) a) Number of studies included in the network: 55 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 2 RCT(s) (N=20); 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 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 imprecision and very serious risk of bias 22) a) Number of studies included in the network: 211 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 8 RCT(s) (N=951); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 4 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 03- 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 23) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to 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: 8 RCT(s) (N=951); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 4 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 2-12 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 24) 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: 9 RCT(s) (N=734); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 4 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 2-12 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
References of studies informing direct evidence:
4) Booth-2016 5) Lee-2015; Zhou-2014 6) Kirk-2009 7) Abaza-2017, Pacaud-2012 8) Booth-2016, Crowley-2016, Kim-2003, Peimani-2016 9) Kim-2003 10) Booth-2016, Crowley-2016, Holmen-2014, Kim-2003, Kim-2005, Kim-2008, Kirk-2009, Kooiman-2018, Lee-2018, Levetan-2002, Peimani-2016, Shenoy-2010, Trief-2006, Wargny-2018, Zhou-2014, Anderson-2010 11) Booth-2016, Kirk-2009, Kooiman-2018, Trief-2006 12) Kim-2003 13) Booth-2016, Zamanzadeh-2017 14) Booth-2016, Holmen-2014, Kooiman-2018 15) Kim-2003 16) Booth-2016Lee-2018Peimani-2016Trief-2006Zhou-2014Anderson-2010 17) Booth-2016, Kim-2005, Kim-2008, Kirk-2009, Lee-2018, Peimani-2016, Zhou-2014 18) Booth-2016, Kim-2008, Kirk-2009, Lee-2018, Peimani-2016,Trief-2006, Zhou-2014 19) Booth-2016 20) Booth-2016, Kim-2005, Kim-2008, Lee-2018, Peimani-2016, Zhou-2014 21) Kim-2003, Crowley-2016 22) Booth-2016Crowley-2016Kirk-2009Lee-2018Shenoy-2010Trief-2006Zhou-2014Anderson-2010 23) Booth-2016Crowley-2016Kirk-2009Lee-2018Shenoy-2010Trief-2006Zhou-2014Anderson-2010 24) Booth-2016, Kirk-2009, Kooiman-2018, Lee-2018, Peimani-2016, Shenoy-2010, Trief-2006, Zhou-2014, Anderson-2010
|