1. Quality of life-Physical and psychological functioning / 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 |
0.3 [-0.1, 0.7] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in quality of life |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
6.0 |
0.3 [-0.1, 0.7] |
Low |
2. Physical Activity / Total steps |
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 |
248.92 [-4597.97, 5095.82] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on steps but the evidence is very uncertain |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
1.0 |
248.92 [-4597.97, 5095.82] |
High |
3. Quality of life-Physical and psychological functioning / 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 |
-0.98 [-1.66, -0.3] |
Very Low |
It may have little to no effect on depression but the evidence is very uncertain |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
2.0 |
-0.98 [-1.66, -0.3] |
Low |
4. Healthy nutrition habits/personalized nutrition / Consumption of fat |
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 |
-0.89 [-1.39, -0.4] |
Low |
It may increase in consumption of fat |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
1.0 |
-0.89 [-1.39, -0.4] |
Moderate |
5. Healthy nutrition habits/personalized nutrition / Carbohydrates |
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 |
N/A |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in Carbohydrates |
0 |
0 |
N/A |
N/A |
1.0 |
-0.49 [-1.46, 0.48] |
Moderate |
6. Physical Activity / Physical activity |
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 |
0.32 [-0.23, 0.86] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in physical activity |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
4.0 |
0.32 [-0.23, 0.86] |
Low |
7. 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 |
0.44 [0.17, 0.71] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in self-efficacy |
2 |
259 |
0.44 [0.17, 0.71] |
Low |
N/A |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
8. Coping with the disease |
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 |
-0.31 [-0.97, 0.34] |
Very Low |
It may have little to no effect on Coping with the disease but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
173 |
-0.31 [-0.97, 0.34] |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
Low |
9. Weight management / Body fat |
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 |
0.78 [0.24, 1.32] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in body fat |
1 |
74 |
0.78 [0.24, 1.32] |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
10. Self-efficacy / Exercise 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 |
0.13 [-0.62, 0.88] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in exercise self-efficacy |
1 |
97 |
0.13 [-0.62, 0.88] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
11. Comorbidities managament / Diastolic pressure |
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 |
-1.71 [-4.14, 0.73] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on diastolic pressure but the evidence is very uncertain |
3 |
425 |
-2.53 [-5.81, 0.75] |
Low |
3.0 |
-0.69 [-4.34, 2.95] |
Moderate |
12. Comorbidities managament / Systolic pressure |
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 |
-2.46 [-6.22, 1.29] |
Very low |
It likely results in little to no difference on systolic pressure |
3 |
425 |
-3.24 [-8.42, 1.94] |
Very low |
3.0 |
-1.6 [-7.06, 3.85] |
Moderate |
13. Weight management / Waist size |
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 |
-3.32 [-4.77, -1.86] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on waist size |
4 |
326 |
-3.99 [-6.02, -1.96] |
Very low |
6.0 |
-2.6 [-4.69, -0.5] |
Low |
14. Weight management / BMI - Body Mass Index |
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 |
-1.46 [-1.98, -0.94] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on Body mass index |
6 |
831 |
-1.67 [-2.41, -0.93] |
Very low |
10.0 |
-1.25 [-1.98, -0.51] |
Low |
15. Weight management / Weight (Kgs/lbs) |
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 |
-4.12 [-5.27, -2.97] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on weight but the evidence is very uncertain |
7 |
853 |
-4.07 [-5.88, -2.25] |
Very low |
12.0 |
-4.15 [-5.64, -2.66] |
Very low |
Footnotes per outcome:
1) 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: 8 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 0 RCT(s) (N=0); 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 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, and very serious imprecision;b) Number of studies included in the network: 31 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 0 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. 3) a) Number of studies included in the network: 13 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 2 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.; b) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious imprecision 4) 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: 20 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 0 RCT(s) (N=0); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 1 comparison(s). 5) 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: 12 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 0 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 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 6) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to, risk of bias and serious imprecision;b) Number of studies included in the network: 329 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 0 RCT(s) (N=0); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 4 comparison(s). 7) 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: 12 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 2 RCT(s) (N=184); 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. 8) 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: 14RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=122); 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 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 9) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias; b) Number of studies included in the network: 27 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=37); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 0 comparison(s). The range of follow up was from 2 to 24 months for the studies included in the whole network. The range of follow-up was Fernandezruiz-2018 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 imprecision and very serious risk of bias; b) Number of studies included in the network: 16 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=47); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 0 comparison(s). The range of follow up was from 1 to 9 months for the studies included in the whole network. The range of follow-up was 3 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 serious imprecision; b)Number of studies included in the network: 112 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 3 RCT(s) (N=248); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 3 comparison(s). The range of follow up was from 1 to 96 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. 12) a)We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious imprecision;b)Number of studies included in the network: 122 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 3 RCT(s) (N=248); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 3 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. 13) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias and serious inconsistency; b) Number of studies included in the network: 178 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 4 RCT(s) (N=165); 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 6-12 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 14) a)We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias and very serious inconsistency; b)Number of studies included in the network: 222 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 6 RCT(s) (N=488); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 10 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. 15) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious of risk of bias and very serious of inconsistency; b) Number of studies included in the network: 329 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 7 RCT(s) (N=501); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 12 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.
References of studies informing direct evidence:
7) Ash-2006Somers-2012 8) Somers-2012 9) Fernandezruiz-2018 10) Buckley-2016 11) Hardcastle-2008, Salyer-2007, Tuomilehto-2010 12) Hardcastle-2008,Salyer-2007,Tuomilehto-2010 13) Ash-2006,Fernandezruiz-2018,Tandon-2014,Tuomilehto-2010 14) Ash-2006, Fernandezruiz-2018, Hardcastle-2008, Somers-2012, Tandon-2014, Tuomilehto-2010 15) Ash-2006, Fernandezruiz-2018, Hardcastle-2008, Salyer-2007, Somers-2012, Tandon-2014, Tuomilehto-2010
|