| 1. 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 |
| 2.09 [1.27, 2.9] |
Low |
It may result in a large increase in foot care self-management |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
NA |
1.0 |
2.09 [1.27, 2.9] |
Low |
| 2. 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 |
| 1.3 [0.27, 2.33] |
Low |
It may result in a large improvement in dietary habits |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
1.0 |
1.3 [0.27, 2.33] |
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 |
| 0.3 [-0.71, 1.3] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in psychological distress but the evidence is very uncertain |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
NA |
1.0 |
0.3 [-0.71, 1.3] |
Low |
| 4. 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 [-1.58, 1.42] |
Very Low |
It may result in little to no difference in quality of life but the evidence is very uncertain |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
NA |
1.0 |
-0.08 [-1.58, 1.42] |
Low |
| 5. 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 |
| -0.8 [-1.95, 0.36] |
Very low |
It may decrease physical activity |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
NA |
1.0 |
-0.8 [-1.95, 0.36] |
Low |
| 6. 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 |
| 0.73 [-0.77, 2.24] |
Very low |
It may increase glucose self-monitoring but the evidence is very uncertain |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
NA |
1.0 |
0.73 [-0.77, 2.24] |
Low |
| 7. 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 |
| 0.82 [-0.19, 1.83] |
Very low |
It may increase self-efficacy |
1 |
93 |
0.82 [-0.19, 1.83] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
| 8. 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 |
| 0.68 [-1.89, 3.25] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in body mass index (kg/m²) but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
93 |
0.68 [-1.89, 3.25] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
| 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 |
| -0.2 [-1.03, 0.63] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in HbA1C levels (%) but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
93 |
-0.2 [-1.03, 0.63] |
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: 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.
2) 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
3) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very 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.
4) a) Number of studies included in the network: 81 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 60 months for the studies included in the whole network; b) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very 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: 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.
6) 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.
7) 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: 55 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=49); 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.
8) 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: 231 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=49); 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 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 very 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=49); 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 6 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
References of studies informing direct evidence:
7) Akturan-2017
8) Akturan-2017
9) Akturan-2017
|
