1. Lung Function / FEV1/FVC ratio - forced expiratory volume in the first one second to the forced vital capacity of the lungs |
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 |
0.08 [-2.47, 2.63] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in FEV1/FVC |
1 |
86 |
0.08 [-2.47, 2.63] |
Low |
1.0 |
N/A |
NA |
2. Coping with the disease, including depression and anxiety / Anxiety |
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 |
-0.54 [-0.98, -0.1] |
Very low |
It may decrease anxiety but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
86 |
-0.54 [-0.98, -0.1] |
Low |
N/A |
N/A |
NA |
3. Lung Function / FEV1 (% pred) - forced expiratory volume |
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 |
0.13 [-5.36, 5.62] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on FEV1 (% pred) but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
86 |
0.13 [-5.36, 5.62] |
Low |
1.0 |
N/A |
NA |
4. Coping with the disease, including depression and anxiety / Depression |
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 |
-0.71 [-1.26, -0.16] |
Very low |
It may decrease depression but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
86 |
-0.71 [-1.26, -0.16] |
Low |
1.0 |
N/A |
NA |
5. Physical activity / Muscle strenght / 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 |
1.05 [-0.47, 2.58] |
Very low |
It may increase exercise capacity but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
86 |
1.05 [-0.47, 2.58] |
Low |
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: 18 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=51); 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 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 and serious imprecision; b) Number of studies included in the network: 25 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=51); 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. 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: 32 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=51); 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 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, and 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=51); 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 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 5) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious imprecision and very serious risk of bias
References of studies informing direct evidence:
1) Liu-2012a 2) Liu-2012a 3) Liu-2012a 4) Liu-2012a 5) Liu-2012a
|