It may increase quality of life (specific-disease instruments) but the evidence is very uncertain
-0.41 [-1.57, 0.76]
NA [NA, NA]
100% of direct evidence informing the NMA effect
Imprecision: Very serious Incoherence: not serious
Risk of bias: Very serious Inconsistency: Not serious Indirectness: Not serious Publication bias: Undetected
Footnotes per outcome:
1) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious imprecision and very serious risk of bias 2) 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: 8 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=143); 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:
1) Gillespie-2013 2) Gillespie-2013
This platform has been developed as part of the COMPAR-EU project. The COMPAR-EU project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 754936.
Please consider, this is the Beta version of the COMPAR-EU platform. The platform will be expanded and improved in the next months.