1. 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 |
-53.86225895316799 [-88.29972451790624, 2.1630853994490176] |
Very low |
It may decrease mortality but the evidence is very uncertain |
3 |
280 |
0.5325918010068972 [0.2952301669240142, 0.9607894391523232] |
Low |
1.0 |
0.8693582353988059 [0.3715766910220457, 2.0544332106438876] |
Moderate |
2. 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 |
-0.19 [-2.41, 2.04] |
Very Low |
It may have little to no effect on adherence to medication or other treatment but the evidence is very uncertain |
2 |
95 |
-0.19 [-2.41, 2.04] |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
Low |
3. 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 |
2.647645739910319 [-10.55863228699553, 32.09125560538121] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect in HF-related hospital admissions but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
0 |
0.12 [-0.68, 0.92] |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
4. 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 |
-0.17 [-0.79, 0.44] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in knowledge but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
171 |
-0.17 [-0.79, 0.44] |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
5. 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 |
-28.37499999999999 [-43.45833333333332, -7.583333333333329] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in all-cause hospital readmissions |
4 |
0 |
-0.42 [-0.74, -0.1] |
Moderate |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
6. 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 |
-12.159336099585072 [-26.605394190871397, 13.259336099585074] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on HF-related hospital readmissions but the evidence is very uncertain |
2 |
0 |
-0.31 [-0.87, 0.26] |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
7. 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 |
1.96 [1.19, 2.73] |
Moderate |
It likely increases exercise capacity |
1 |
75 |
1.96 [1.19, 2.73] |
Moderate |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
8. 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 |
-0.15 [-0.98, 0.69] |
Very Low |
It may result in little to no difference in self-efficacy but the evidence is very uncertain |
3 |
330 |
-0.15 [-0.98, 0.69] |
Low |
N/A |
N/A |
Low |
9. Hospital admissions / Emergency room/department visits |
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 |
117.6478260869565 [-37.70434782608694, 4451.730434782607] |
Very low |
It may increase emergency room visits but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
0 |
1.31 [-2.02, 4.64] |
Low |
N/A |
N/A |
Low |
10. 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 |
0.33 [-0.22, 0.87] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in quality of life but the evidence is very uncertain |
6 |
445 |
0.33 [-0.22, 0.87] |
Very low |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
11. 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 |
-18.199999999999996 [-46.10277777777777, 51.29444444444444] |
Very low |
It may increase all cause admission but the evidence is very uncertain |
2 |
0 |
-0.33 [-1.24, 0.58] |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
Footnotes per outcome:
1) a)We rated down due to serious imprecision and very serious risk of bias; b)Number of studies included in the network: 82 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 3 RCT(s) (N=138); 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 3-12 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 2) a)We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias, very serious imprecision; b)Number of studies included in the network: 8 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 2 RCT(s) (N=50); 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- 6 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, very serious imprecision; b)Number of studies included in the network: 33 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 6 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, very serious risk of bias, and serious imprecision; b)Number of studies included in the network: 16 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=83); 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 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: 4 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. 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: 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. 7) a)We rated down due to serious risk of bias, b)Number of studies included in the network: 34 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=40); 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, very serious imprecision; b)Number of studies included in the network: 38 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 3 RCT(s) (N=154); 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 1-12 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 risk of bias, very serious imprecision; b)Number of studies included in the network: 20 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=0); 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 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 10) 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: 81 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 6 RCT(s) (N=216); 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 1 - 6 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 11) 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 1-6 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
References of studies informing direct evidence:
1) Bouvy-2003; Gonzalez-Guerrero-2014; Vinluan-2015 2) Bouvy-2003; Vinluan-2015 3) Bouvy-2003 4) Boyde-2018 5) Boyde-2018, Falces-2008, Gonzalez-Guerrero-2014, Vinluan-2015 6) Boyde-2018, Gonzalez-Guerrero-2014 7) Andryukhin-2010 8) Boyde-2018; Jaarsma-2000a; Mcmillan-2013 9) Mcmillan-2013 10) Andryukhin-2010; Donner Alves-2012; Jaarsma-2000a; Mcmillan-2013; Philipson-2010; Yu-2015a 11) Bouvy-2003, Mcmillan-2013
|