1. 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 |
-0.34 [-0.89, 0.21] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in Fruit and vegetable consumption |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
1.0 |
-0.34 [-0.89, 0.21] |
Low |
2. 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 |
-0.2 [-0.93, 0.53] |
Very Low |
It may result in little to no difference on dietary habits but the evidence is very uncertain |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
1.0 |
-0.2 [-0.93, 0.53] |
Low |
3. 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 |
-1.51 [-3.93, 0.9] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in systolic pressure |
3 |
733 |
-0.12 [-4.89, 4.64] |
Low |
13.0 |
-1.99 [-4.79, 0.8] |
Low |
4. 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 |
126 |
N/A |
Low |
0.0 |
0.66 [-0.61, 1.92] |
Low |
5. 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 |
-1.38 [-2.6, -0.15] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in waist size |
3 |
803 |
-1.46 [-3.6, 0.68] |
Low |
13.0 |
-1.34 [-2.83, 0.15] |
Low |
6. 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 |
-0.76 [-2.38, 0.85] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on diastolic pressure but the evidence is very uncertain |
3 |
733 |
0.52 [-2.55, 3.58] |
Low |
12.0 |
-1.26 [-3.16, 0.64] |
Low |
7. 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 |
-1.59 [-2.02, -1.17] |
Low |
It may result in a large increase in consumption of fat |
1 |
126 |
-1.59 [-2.02, -1.17] |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
8. 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 |
0.38 [-0.07, 0.84] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in physical activity |
2 |
63 |
0.6 [-0.14, 1.33] |
Low |
8.0 |
0.25 [-0.33, 0.83] |
Low |
9. 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 |
-0.32 [-0.88, 0.24] |
Very Low |
It may have little to no effect on depression but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
59 |
-0.33 [-0.95, 0.29] |
Low |
3.0 |
-0.28 [-1.64, 1.08] |
Low |
10. 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 |
-0.45 [-0.74, -0.16] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in body fat |
1 |
126 |
-0.46 [-0.92, 0.01] |
Low |
6.0 |
-0.45 [-0.82, -0.07] |
Low |
11. 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 |
-0.41 [-0.89, 0.06] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in Body mass index |
5 |
865 |
-0.26 [-1.18, 0.65] |
Low |
18.0 |
-0.46 [-1.02, 0.09] |
Low |
12. 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 |
0.24 [-0.27, 0.76] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in self-efficacy |
1 |
59 |
0.24 [-0.27, 0.75] |
Low |
N/A |
NA [NA, NA] |
NA |
13. 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 |
-1.11 [-2.16, -0.06] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on weight but the evidence is very uncertain |
4 |
756 |
-2.04 [-5.03, 0.94] |
Very low |
24.0 |
-0.98 [-2.1, 0.14] |
Low |
14. 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 |
0.23 [-0.23, 0.69] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in quality of life but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
39 |
0.07 [-0.68, 0.83] |
Low |
5.0 |
0.32 [-0.26, 0.91] |
Low |
15. 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 |
-0.61 [-1.32, 0.09] |
Very Low |
It may decrease Coping with the disease but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
59 |
-0.39 [-1.16, 0.37] |
Low |
0.0 |
-1.83 [-3.63, -0.03] |
Low |
16. 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 |
611.0 [-3114.77, 4336.77] |
Very low |
It may decrease steps but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
43 |
611.0 [-3114.77, 4336.77] |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
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: 15 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). 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: 33 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)Number of studies included in the network: 122 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 3 RCT(s) (N=199); 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 3-6 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: 12 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=87); 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 9 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 risk of bias; b) Number of studies included in the network: 178 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 3 RCT(s) (N=255); 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 6-9 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 6) a)We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious incoherence; b)Number of studies included in the network: 112 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 3 RCT(s) (N=199); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 12 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 3-6 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: 20 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=87); 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 9 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: 55 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 2 RCT(s) (N=33); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 8 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 3-4 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 9) a) Number of studies included in the network: 13 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=29); 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 3 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 10) 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=87); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 6 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 White-2010 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; b)Number of studies included in the network: 222 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 5 RCT(s) (N=286); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 18 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 3-9 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 12) 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=29); 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 3 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 of risk of bias and serious inconsistency; b) Number of studies included in the network: 329 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 4 RCT(s) (N=210); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 24 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. 14) 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: 22 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=20); 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 3 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 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=29); 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 3 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 and very serious imprecision;b) Number of studies included in the network: 31 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=20); 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 0 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
References of studies informing direct evidence:
3) Barnes-2014,Jenkins-2017,Marcon-2017 4) White-2010 5) Jenkins-2017,Katzmarzyk-2011,White-2010 6) Barnes-2014, Jenkins-2017, Marcon-2017 7) White-2010 8) Labrunee-2012b, Marcon-2017 9) Barnes-2014 10) White-2010 11) Dimarco-2009, Jenkins-2017, Katzmarzyk-2011, Labrunee-2012b, White-2010 12) Barnes-2014 13) Barnes-2014, Jenkins-2017, Labrunee-2012b, Marcon-2017 14) Dimarco-2009 15) Barnes-2014 16) Katzmarzyk-2011
|