1. 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 |
1.53 [0.3, 2.75] |
Low |
It may result in a large increase in self-efficacy |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
2.0 |
1.53 [0.3, 2.75] |
Low |
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 |
-0.07 [-0.57, 0.43] |
Very Low |
It may have little to no effect on adherence to medication or other treatment is very uncertain |
1 |
69 |
-0.07 [-0.57, 0.43] |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
Low |
3. 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 |
0.53 [-0.17, 1.24] |
Very low |
It may increase knowledge but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
85 |
0.53 [-0.17, 1.24] |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
4. 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 |
0.17 [-0.46, 0.8] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect in exercise capacity but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
141 |
0.17 [-0.46, 0.8] |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
5. 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 |
0.27 [-0.65, 1.18] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in quality of life but the evidence is very uncertain |
2 |
233 |
0.27 [-0.65, 1.18] |
Very low |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
Footnotes per outcome:
1) a)We rated down the certainty of evidence due to 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: 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 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=46); 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 8 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 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=56); 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 8 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 4) 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: 1 RCT(s) (N=66); 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 4 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 5) 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: 2 RCT(s) (N=115); 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 - 19 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
References of studies informing direct evidence:
2) Dunbar-2013 3) Dunbar-2013 4) Dalal-2018 5) Dalal-2018; Ramachandran-2007
|