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 |
0.03 [-0.38, 0.45] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in adherence to medication or other treatment |
2 |
160 |
0.03 [-0.38, 0.45] |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
Low |
2. 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 |
0.8 [0.44, 1.16] |
Very low |
It may increase quality of life but the evidence is very uncertain |
10 |
1034 |
0.77 [0.35, 1.19] |
Very low |
6.0 |
0.86 [0.17, 1.56] |
Very 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 |
-5.367713004484312 [-10.758856502242166, 2.781838565022426] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect in HF-related hospital admissions but the evidence is very uncertain |
3 |
0 |
-0.37 [-0.8, 0.06] |
Moderate |
1.0 |
0.7 [-0.83, 2.22] |
Moderate |
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 |
0.36 [-0.31, 1.03] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in knowledge but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
52 |
0.07 [-0.77, 0.91] |
Low |
1.0 |
0.87 [-0.23, 1.98] |
Low |
5. 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 |
-39.9086956521739 [-43.09565217391303, -10.104347826086956] |
Moderate |
It likely results in little to no difference in emergency room visits |
1 |
0 |
-2.5 [-4.74, -0.26] |
Moderate |
N/A |
N/A |
Moderate |
6. 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 |
0.56 [0.22, 0.89] |
Very low |
It may increase exercise capacity but the evidence is very uncertain |
4 |
171 |
0.54 [0.11, 0.96] |
Low |
6.0 |
0.58 [0.06, 1.11] |
Low |
7. 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 |
-27.547107438016504 [-52.55867768595036, 4.354820936639111] |
Very low |
It may decrease mortality but the evidence is very uncertain |
6 |
873 |
0.7261490370736909 [0.522045776761016, 1.0202013400267558] |
Moderate |
1.0 |
0.9048374180359595 [0.6376281516217733, 1.2840254166877414] |
Moderate |
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 |
0.69 [-0.07, 1.45] |
Very Low |
It may increase self-efficacy but the evidence is very uncertain |
3 |
151 |
0.46 [-0.42, 1.33] |
Low |
2.0 |
1.41 [-0.14, 2.97] |
Low |
9. 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 |
-29.90555555555555 [-45.506481481481465, -1.6981481481481477] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in all cause admission |
2 |
0 |
-1.05 [-1.85, -0.25] |
Moderate |
1.0 |
-0.1 [-0.98, 0.78] |
Moderate |
10. 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 |
-21.30833333333333 [-45.774999999999984, 19.099999999999998] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect in all-cause hospital readmissions but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
0 |
-0.2 [-0.78, 0.38] |
Low |
0.0 |
-0.58 [-1.58, 0.43] |
Low |
11. 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 |
-14.345643153526986 [-30.813692946058126, 20.41618257261413] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on HF-related hospital readmissions but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
0 |
-0.38 [-1.12, 0.37] |
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; b)Number of studies included in the network: 8 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 2 RCT(s) (N=81); 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 1-3 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 2) a)We rated down the certainty of evidence due to We rated down the certainty of evidence due to 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: 10 RCT(s) (N=595); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 6 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 - 24 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 3) 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: 3 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. The range of follow-up was 6-24 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=40); 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 1 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; 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 12 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 6) 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: 4 RCT(s) (N=92); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 6 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. 7) a)We rated down due to serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision; b)Number of studies included in the network: 82 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 6 RCT(s) (N=496); 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 6-24 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 8) a)We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias, 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=87); 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 1-6 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 9) a)We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious risk of bias and 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: 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. 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: 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 24 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: 30 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 24 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
References of studies informing direct evidence:
1) Athar-2018; Korajkic-2011 2) Aguado-2010; Bocchi-2008; Chen-2018b; Dunbar-2014a; Gary-2010; Giannuzzi-2003; Kasper-2002; Korajkic-2011; Reeves-2017a;Seto-2012 3) Jolly-2009, Kasper-2002, Kato-2016 4) Dunbar-2014a 5) Capomolla-2004 6) Gary-2010, Giannuzzi-2003, Hollriegel-2016, Reeves-2017a 7) Aguado-2010; Bocchi-2008; Kasper-2002; Kato-2016; Ortiz-Bautista-2018; Seto-2012 8) Caldwell-2005; Dunbar-2014a; Seto-2012 9) Capomolla-2004, Korajkic-2011 10) Ortiz-Bautista-2018 11) Ortiz-Bautista-2018
|