1. 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 |
0.65 [-0.07, 1.38] |
Very low |
It may increase quality of life but the evidence is very uncertain |
3 |
228 |
0.55 [-0.22, 1.33] |
Very low |
2.0 |
1.35 [-0.69, 3.39] |
Very low |
2. Exercise capacity (including effort test) / Exercise capacity |
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 [-0.3, 0.81] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect in exercise capacity but the evidence is very uncertain |
2 |
69 |
0.26 [-0.34, 0.87] |
Low |
2.0 |
0.2 [-1.17, 1.57] |
Moderate |
3. Hospital admissions / All-cause hospital admissions |
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 |
-18.368518518518513 [-41.948148148148135, 29.52962962962962] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on all cause admission but the evidence is very uncertain |
2 |
0 |
-0.33 [-1.04, 0.38] |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
4. Hospital admissions / HF-related 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 |
-21.84481327800832 [-30.156431535269743, -9.069294605809137] |
Moderate |
It likely results in a slight decrease in HF-related hospital readmissions |
2 |
0 |
-0.65 [-1.08, -0.22] |
Moderate |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
5. 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 |
-50.925619834710695 [-73.24407713498614, -21.501928374655627] |
Moderate |
It likely results in a large decrease in mortality |
5 |
1546 |
0.6440364210831414 [0.4867522559599717, 0.8521437889662113] |
Moderate |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
6. Hospital admissions / HF-related hospital admissions |
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 |
-2.5624439461883433 [-8.863116591928263, 6.929035874439469] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect in HF-related hospital admissions but the evidence is very uncertain |
2 |
0 |
-0.13 [-0.54, 0.28] |
Moderate |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
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 |
0.42 [-0.61, 1.46] |
Very Low |
It may result in little to no difference in self-efficacy but the evidence is very uncertain |
2 |
636 |
0.42 [-0.61, 1.46] |
Moderate |
N/A |
N/A |
Moderate |
8. 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 |
-17.60833333333333 [-38.38333333333332, 12.75833333333333] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in all-cause hospital readmissions |
2 |
0 |
-0.24 [-0.62, 0.14] |
Moderate |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
Footnotes per outcome:
1) a)We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias, very serious risk of bias, very serious imprecision; b)Number of studies included in the network: 81 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 3 RCT(s) (N=108); 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 - 19 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 2) a)We rated down due to serious imprecision and very serious risk of bias, b)Number of studies included in the network: 34 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 2 RCT(s) (N=36); 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 0 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 3) 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: 45 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 2 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 12-19 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 4) a)We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious risk of bias; b)Number of studies included in the network: 30 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 2 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 12 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 5) 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: 5 RCT(s) (N=856); 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 12-24 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 6) a)We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious risk of bias, very serious imprecision; b)Number of studies included in the network: 33 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 2 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 19-24 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 7) a)We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious risk of bias, very serious imprecision; b)Number of studies included in the network: 38 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 2 RCT(s) (N=410); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 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 1-24 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 8) 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: 2 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 12 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
References of studies informing direct evidence:
1) Chen-2018e; Gary-2010; Vaillant-Roussel-2016 2) Chen-2018e, Gary-2010 3) Bekelman-2018, Vaillant-Roussel-2016 4) Leventhal-2011, Ojeda-2005 5) Bekelman-2018; Leventhal-2011; Ojeda-2005; Park-2017; Vaillant-Roussel-2016 6) Park-2017, Vaillant-Roussel-2016 7) Paradis-2010; Park-2017 8) Leventhal-2011, Ojeda-2005
|