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 |
-0.01 [-0.73, 0.7] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in quality of life but the evidence is very uncertain |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
4.0 |
-0.01 [-0.73, 0.7] |
Low |
2. 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 |
-0.15 [-0.62, 0.32] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in consumption of fat |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
1.0 |
-0.15 [-0.62, 0.32] |
Low |
3. Healthy nutrition habits/personalized nutrition / Dietary habits |
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 |
-0.52 [-0.85, -0.19] |
Very Low |
It may improve dietary habits but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
275 |
-0.61 [-1.02, -0.2] |
Low |
2.0 |
-0.35 [-0.91, 0.21] |
Low |
4. 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 |
-0.19 [-0.46, 0.09] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in body fat |
1 |
452 |
-0.1 [-0.42, 0.22] |
Low |
2.0 |
-0.43 [-0.95, 0.09] |
Low |
5. 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 |
0.33 [-0.26, 0.91] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in physical activity |
1 |
452 |
0.28 [-0.48, 1.04] |
Low |
2.0 |
0.4 [-0.53, 1.32] |
Low |
6. Healthy nutrition habits/personalized nutrition / Fruit and vegetable consumption |
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 |
0.29 [0.0, 0.59] |
Very Low |
It may have little to no effect on Fruit and vegetable consumption but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
123 |
0.26 [-0.09, 0.62] |
Low |
0.0 |
0.36 [-0.16, 0.88] |
Low |
7. 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 |
-1.25 [-2.0, -0.5] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in Body mass index |
2 |
791 |
-0.68 [-1.96, 0.61] |
Low |
5.0 |
-1.55 [-2.47, -0.62] |
Low |
8. 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 |
-1.43 [-3.0, 0.15] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in weight |
2 |
791 |
-1.96 [-5.27, 1.36] |
Low |
7.0 |
-1.27 [-3.06, 0.52] |
Low |
9. 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 |
0.43 [-2.52, 3.38] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on diastolic pressure but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
452 |
1.19 [-3.65, 6.03] |
Low |
2.0 |
-0.01 [-3.74, 3.71] |
Low |
10. 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 |
0.4 [-4.23, 5.04] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in systolic pressure |
1 |
452 |
1.83 [-5.58, 9.24] |
Low |
2.0 |
-0.51 [-6.46, 5.43] |
Low |
11. 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 |
-2.37 [-4.01, -0.72] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on waist size |
2 |
791 |
-1.55 [-3.92, 0.82] |
Very low |
3.0 |
-3.13 [-5.41, -0.84] |
Low |
Footnotes per outcome:
1) 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: 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: 4 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 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). 3) 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: 33 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=134); 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 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; b) Number of studies included in the network: 27 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=229); 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 Olson-2016 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 imprecision;b) Number of studies included in the network: 55 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=229); 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 6 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 6) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of biasserious imprecision; b) Number of studies included in the network: 15 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=58); 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. 7) a)We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias; b)Number of studies included in the network: 222 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 2 RCT(s) (N=392); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 5 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 6-6 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 of risk of bias; b) Number of studies included in the network: 329 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 2 RCT(s) (N=392); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 7 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 6-6 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, very serious imprecision; b)Number of studies included in the network: 112 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=229); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 2 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 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 10) 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: 1 RCT(s) (N=229); 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 6 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 inconsistency; b) Number of studies included in the network: 178 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 2 RCT(s) (N=392); 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 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
References of studies informing direct evidence:
3) Olson-2016 4) Olson-2016 5) Olson-2016 6) Mummah-2017 7) Block-2015,Olson-2016 8) Block-2015, Olson-2016 9) Olson-2016 10) Olson-2016 11) Block-2015,Olson-2016
|