1. 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 |
-0.37 [-1.24, 0.5] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in exercise self-efficacy |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
NA |
1.0 |
-0.37 [-1.24, 0.5] |
Low |
2. Healthy nutrition habits/personalized nutrition / Fiber 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 |
-0.14 [-0.4, 0.12] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in Fiber consumption |
1 |
192 |
-0.14 [-0.42, 0.15] |
Low |
0.0 |
-0.14 [-0.78, 0.5] |
Low |
3. 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 |
0.58 [0.22, 0.95] |
Very low |
It may increase physical activity but the evidence is very uncertain |
5 |
564 |
0.63 [0.22, 1.04] |
Very low |
2.0 |
0.37 [-0.5, 1.23] |
Very low |
4. 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 [-0.11, 0.72] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in quality of life but the evidence is very uncertain |
2 |
83 |
0.32 [-0.22, 0.86] |
Very low |
3.0 |
0.27 [-0.38, 0.92] |
Low |
5. Self-efficacy / Eating 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 |
-0.43 [-1.54, 0.68] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in eating self-efficacy |
1 |
80 |
-0.13 [-1.57, 1.31] |
Low |
1.0 |
-0.88 [-2.63, 0.88] |
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 |
0.0 [-0.4, 0.41] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in Fruit and vegetable consumption |
1 |
59 |
0.13 [-0.39, 0.65] |
Low |
0.0 |
-0.19 [-0.82, 0.45] |
Low |
7. 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 |
572.08 [-1219.13, 2363.29] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on steps but the evidence is very uncertain |
3 |
498 |
1084.01 [-1009.11, 3177.12] |
Low |
3.0 |
-828.5 [-4290.64, 2633.65] |
Low |
8. 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 |
-0.55 [-0.9, -0.21] |
Very Low |
It may improve dietary habits but the evidence is very uncertain |
2 |
117 |
-0.56 [-1.01, -0.1] |
Low |
4.0 |
-0.55 [-1.09, -0.02] |
Low |
9. 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 |
Very Low |
It may have little to no effect on Carbohydrates but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
31 |
N/A |
Low |
0.0 |
-1.22 [-2.34, -0.1] |
Low |
10. 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 |
-0.19 [-0.73, 0.34] |
Very Low |
It may have little to no effect on depression but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
90 |
-0.19 [-0.73, 0.34] |
Low |
1.0 |
N/A |
NA |
11. 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 |
-0.37 [-0.6, -0.14] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in body fat |
4 |
424 |
-0.49 [-0.77, -0.22] |
Low |
3.0 |
-0.09 [-0.51, 0.33] |
Low |
12. 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 |
-0.08 [-0.63, 0.46] |
Very Low |
It may have little to no effect on Coping with the disease but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
90 |
-0.31 [-1.01, 0.39] |
Low |
0.0 |
0.25 [-0.6, 1.1] |
Low |
13. 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 |
-0.31 [-0.53, -0.1] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on consumption of fat but the evidence is very uncertain |
2 |
352 |
-0.34 [-0.58, -0.11] |
Low |
0.0 |
-0.14 [-0.7, 0.41] |
Low |
14. 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 |
-2.67 [-3.86, -1.48] |
Very low |
It may decrease diastolic pressure but the evidence is very uncertain |
12 |
1649 |
-1.99 [-3.53, -0.46] |
Very low |
7.0 |
-3.68 [-5.57, -1.79] |
Very low |
15. 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 |
-1.83 [-3.69, 0.03] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on systolic pressure but the evidence is very uncertain |
12 |
1649 |
0.13 [-2.26, 2.52] |
Very low |
7.0 |
-4.82 [-7.77, -1.87] |
Very low |
16. 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 |
-3.45 [-4.26, -2.65] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in waist size |
17 |
2142 |
-3.34 [-4.39, -2.3] |
Low |
7.0 |
-3.61 [-4.88, -2.34] |
Low |
17. 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 |
-1.31 [-1.63, -0.99] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in Body mass index |
17 |
1776 |
-1.02 [-1.47, -0.57] |
Low |
12.0 |
-1.61 [-2.07, -1.15] |
Low |
18. 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 |
-2.49 [-3.16, -1.83] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on weight but the evidence is very uncertain |
24 |
2932 |
-2.84 [-3.79, -1.88] |
Very low |
13.0 |
-2.17 [-3.1, -1.24] |
Very low |
Footnotes per outcome:
1) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious imprecision and serious risk of bias; b) Number of studies included in the network: 16 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 9 months for the studies included in the whole network. 2) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias; b) Number of studies included in the network: 8 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=97); 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. 3) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias, serious inconsistency and serious imprecision;b) Number of studies included in the network: 55 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 5 RCT(s) (N=362); 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 3-12 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, serious inconsistency, and serious imprecision; b)Number of studies included in the network: 22 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 2 RCT(s) (N=43); 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 3-6 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 imprecision;b)Number of studies included in the network: 12 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=40); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 1 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 12 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 bias; b) Number of studies included in the network: 15 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=35); 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 12 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 7) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious risk of bias, serious inconsistency, and very serious imprecision;b) Number of studies included in the network: 31 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 3 RCT(s) (N=330); 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 3-12 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 8) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious imprecision;b) Number of studies included in the network: 33 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 2 RCT(s) (N=64); 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 3-24 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 and serious imprecision; b) Number of studies included in the network: 12 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=16); 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. 10) a) Number of studies included in the network: 13 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=47); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 1 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 6 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 and very serious risk of bias 11) 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: 4 RCT(s) (N=291); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 3 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 Juliana-2017, Mason-2013, Swisher-2015, Xiao-2016 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: 14RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=47); 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. 13) 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: 20 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 2 RCT(s) (N=250); 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 4-12 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, serious inconsistency, and serious imprecision; b)Number of studies included in the network: 112 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 12 RCT(s) (N=883); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 7 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 2-15 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 15) a)We rated down the certainty of evidence due to, serious incoherence;b)Number of studies included in the network: 122 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 12 RCT(s) (N=883); 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 2-15 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 16) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very serious risk of bias; b) Number of studies included in the network: 178 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 17 RCT(s) (N=1214); 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 2-15 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 17) 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: 17 RCT(s) (N=1031); 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 2-15 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 18) 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: 24 RCT(s) (N=1661); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 13 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 0 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
References of studies informing direct evidence:
2) Assuncao-2010 3) Juliana-2017, Mason-2013, Swisher-2015, Takahashi-2016, Von Gruenigen-2012 4) Moss-2014,Swisher-2015 5) Haapala-2009 6) Von Gruenigen-2012 7) Hagberg-2014, Mason-2013,Takahashi-2016 8) Alizadeh-2013, Steinberg-2014a 9) Juliana-2017 10) Steinberg-2014a 11) Juliana-2017, Mason-2013, Swisher-2015, Xiao-2016 12) Steinberg-2014a 13) Juliana-2017, Mason-2013 14) Assuncao-2010, Gallagher-2014a, Kim-2014b, Miguel Soca-2012, Moss-2014, O'Neil-2016b, Oh-2018, Pedersen-2007b, Straznicky-2010, Sugawara-2018, Vissers-2010, Xiao-2013 15) Assuncao-2010, Gallagher-2014a, Kim-2014b, Miguel Soca-2012, Moss-2014, O'Neil-2016b, Oh-2018, Pedersen-2007b, Straznicky-2010, Sugawara-2018, Vissers-2010, Xiao-2013 16) Alizadeh-2013,Assuncao-2010,Gallagher-2014a,Haapala-2009,Kim-2014b,Mason-2013,Miguel Soca-2012,Moss-2014,O'Neil-2016b,Oh-2018,Straznicky-2010,Sugawara-2018,Swisher-2015,Vissers-2010,Von Gruenigen-2012,Xiao-2013,Xiao-2016 17) Alizadeh-2013, Assuncao-2010, Fritz-2011, Gallagher-2014a, Hagberg-2014, Juliana-2017, Kim-2014b, Mason-2013, Miguel Soca-2012, Moss-2014, Oh-2018, Straznicky-2010, Sugawara-2018, Swisher-2015, Vissers-2010, Von Gruenigen-2012, Xiao-2013 18) Alizadeh-2013, Assuncao-2010, Daumit-2013, Gallagher-2014a, Haapala-2009, Hagberg-2014, Kim-2014b, Lally-2008, Linde-2011, Mason-2013, Miguel Soca-2012, Moss-2014, O'Neil-2016b, Oh-2018, Pedersen-2007b, Steinberg-2014a, Straznicky-2010, Sugawara-2018, Swisher-2015, Van Gemert-2015, Vissers-2010, Von Gruenigen-2012, Xiao-2013, Xiao-2016
|