| 1. 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 |
| -0.19 [-1.35, 0.97] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect in exercise capacity but the evidence is very uncertain |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
2.0 |
-0.19 [-1.35, 0.97] |
Low |
| 2. 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 |
| -5.050336322869961 [-9.842937219730953, 1.7487668161435013] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect in HF-related hospital admissions but the evidence is very uncertain |
3 |
0 |
-0.27 [-0.62, 0.08] |
Moderate |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
| 3. 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 |
| -18.75933609958508 [-28.166390041493806, -4.28132780082988] |
Moderate |
It likely results in little to no difference in HF-related hospital readmissions |
1 |
0 |
-0.53 [-0.96, -0.1] |
Moderate |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
| 4. 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 |
| -15.673913043478256 [-34.23478260869564, 40.15217391304347] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect in emergency room visits but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
0 |
-0.45 [-1.55, 0.65] |
Moderate |
N/A |
N/A |
Moderate |
| 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 |
| -25.174999999999994 [-44.774999999999984, 4.399999999999995] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in all-cause hospital readmissions |
1 |
0 |
-0.36 [-0.77, 0.05] |
Moderate |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
| 6. 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 |
| -8.322222222222218 [-36.10833333333332, 46.36851851851851] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on all cause admission but the evidence is very uncertain |
2 |
0 |
-0.14 [-0.81, 0.54] |
Moderate |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
| 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 |
| -18.321763085399432 [-45.281542699724476, 16.087052341597786] |
Very low |
It may decrease mortality but the evidence is very uncertain |
3 |
2168 |
0.8693582353988059 [0.6838614092123558, 1.1162780704588713] |
Moderate |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
| 8. 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 |
| -0.11 [-1.51, 1.28] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in quality of life but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
36 |
-0.11 [-1.51, 1.28] |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
Footnotes per outcome:
1) a)We rated down due to very 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: 0 RCT(s) (N=0); 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 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, 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: 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 6-12 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; 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 12 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, 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 6 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: 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 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 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 6-16 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
7) a)We rated down due to very serious imprecision and 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=1083); 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 12-16 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: 81 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=24); 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 2 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
References of studies informing direct evidence:
2) Gesica-2005, Nouryan-2018, Sardu-2016
3) Giordano-2009
4) Nouryan-2018
5) Giordano-2009
6) Gesica-2005, Nouryan-2018
7) Gesica-2005;Giordano-2009;Sardu-2016
8) Jerant-2003a
|
