| 1. Adherence to medication or other treatment / Adherence to medication |
| 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 [0.35, 1.14] |
Very Low |
It may increase adherence to medication or other treatment but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
106 |
0.75 [0.35, 1.14] |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
Low |
| 2. Hospital admissions / All-cause hospital readmissions |
| 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 |
| -6.924999999999994 [-25.04999999999999, 16.849999999999987] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in all-cause hospital readmissions |
1 |
0 |
-0.09 [-0.36, 0.18] |
Moderate |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
| 3. Mortality / All causes of mortality |
| 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 |
| -88.91570247933875 [-110.90468319559216, -51.99999999999994] |
Moderate |
It likely results in a large decrease mortality |
2 |
431 |
0.37908303810339883 [0.22537265553943872, 0.6376281516217733] |
Moderate |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
| 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 |
| 0.2 [-1.06, 1.46] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in quality of life but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
134 |
0.2 [-1.06, 1.46] |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
Footnotes per outcome:
1) a)We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias, serious imprecision; b)Number of studies included in the network: 8 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=58); 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.
2) a)We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious risk of bias, serious imprecision; b)Number of studies included in the network: 39 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=0); 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 120 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
3) a)We rated down due to serious risk of bias ; b)Number of studies included in the network: 82 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 2 RCT(s) (N=219); 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 12-120 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
4) a)We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias,serious inconsistency, very serious risk of bias, serious imprecision; b)Number of studies included in the network: 81 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=70); 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 12 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
References of studies informing direct evidence:
1) Thompson-2005
2) Inglis-2006
3) Inglis-2006; Lopez Cabezas-2007
4) Lopez Cabezas-2007
|
