| 1. 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 |
| -3.18 [-6.61, 0.25] |
Moderate |
It likely results in little to no difference on waist size |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
1.0 |
-3.18 [-6.61, 0.25] |
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 |
| -0.35 [-0.98, 0.29] |
Very Low |
It may result in little to no difference on dietary habits but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
53 |
-0.35 [-0.98, 0.29] |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
| 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 |
| 0.95 [0.02, 1.88] |
Very low |
It may increase physical activity |
1 |
53 |
0.95 [0.02, 1.88] |
Low |
0.0 |
N/A |
NA |
| 4. 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 |
| -3.13 [-8.67, 2.4] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in systolic pressure |
1 |
49 |
-7.8 [-17.73, 2.13] |
Low |
1.0 |
-1.03 [-7.69, 5.64] |
Low |
| 5. 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 |
| -5.4 [-11.79, 0.99] |
Very low |
It may decrease diastolic pressure but the evidence is very uncertain |
1 |
49 |
-5.4 [-11.79, 0.99] |
Low |
0.0 |
NA [NA, NA] |
Low |
| 6. 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 |
| -1.66 [-2.86, -0.47] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on Body mass index |
1 |
49 |
-2.11 [-3.86, -0.36] |
Low |
1.0 |
-1.28 [-2.91, 0.36] |
Low |
| 7. 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 |
| -4.57 [-7.37, -1.77] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in weight |
2 |
102 |
-5.38 [-9.33, -1.44] |
Low |
1.0 |
-3.75 [-7.71, 0.21] |
Low |
Footnotes per outcome:
1) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious risk of bias; b) Number of studies included in the network: 178 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 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=27); 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 and 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=27); 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.
4) 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=33); 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 5 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, 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: 1 RCT(s) (N=33); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 0 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 5 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 and serious imprecision, serious imprecision;b)Number of studies included in the network: 222 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 1 RCT(s) (N=33); 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 5 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 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=60); 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 5-6 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care.
References of studies informing direct evidence:
2) Lubans-2012
3) Lubans-2012
4) Samuel-Hodge-2017b
5) Samuel-Hodge-2017b
6) Samuel-Hodge-2017b
7) Lubans-2012, Samuel-Hodge-2017b
|
