1. 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 |
-1.77 [-2.47, -1.07] |
Low |
It may result in a large increase in consumption of fat |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
1.0 |
-1.77 [-2.47, -1.07] |
Low |
2. 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 |
0.96 [-1.31, 3.24] |
Very low |
It may increase eating self-efficacy |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
1.0 |
0.96 [-1.31, 3.24] |
Low |
3. 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 |
1686.25 [-1165.19, 4537.69] |
Very low |
It may decrease steps but the evidence is very uncertain |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
N/A |
4.0 |
1686.25 [-1165.19, 4537.69] |
Low |
4. 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 |
-0.07 [-1.57, 1.43] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in exercise self-efficacy |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
NA |
1.0 |
-0.07 [-1.57, 1.43] |
Low |
5. 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 |
-0.7 [-1.07, -0.34] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in body fat |
0 |
0 |
[, ] |
NA |
2.0 |
-0.7 [-1.07, -0.34] |
Low |
6. 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 |
-0.25 [-0.54, 0.04] |
Very Low |
It may result in little to no difference on dietary habits but the evidence is very uncertain |
2 |
617 |
-0.11 [-0.42, 0.21] |
Low |
4.0 |
-1.12 [-1.89, -0.35] |
Low |
7. 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 |
0.25 [-0.16, 0.66] |
Very low |
It may result in little to no difference in physical activity |
2 |
611 |
0.14 [-0.43, 0.71] |
Low |
7.0 |
0.37 [-0.23, 0.97] |
Low |
8. 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 |
-0.91 [-2.91, 1.09] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on diastolic pressure but the evidence is very uncertain |
2 |
304 |
-1.71 [-5.42, 2.0] |
Very low |
7.0 |
-0.58 [-2.95, 1.8] |
Low |
9. 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 |
-1.16 [-4.3, 1.98] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in systolic pressure |
2 |
304 |
-1.27 [-6.93, 4.39] |
Low |
7.0 |
-1.11 [-4.88, 2.66] |
Low |
10. 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 |
-2.07 [-3.43, -0.7] |
Low |
It may result in little to no difference in waist size |
5 |
1194 |
-0.67 [-2.66, 1.32] |
Low |
11.0 |
-3.32 [-5.2, -1.44] |
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 |
-0.89 [-1.43, -0.36] |
Moderate |
It likely results in little to no difference on Body mass index |
4 |
531 |
-0.73 [-1.64, 0.19] |
Moderate |
10.0 |
-0.98 [-1.63, -0.33] |
Low |
12. 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 |
-2.66 [-3.75, -1.57] |
Very low |
It may have little to no effect on weight but the evidence is very uncertain |
8 |
2104 |
-2.4 [-4.13, -0.67] |
Very low |
15.0 |
-2.83 [-4.23, -1.42] |
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: 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). 2) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due toserious risk of bias and very 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). 3) 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: 4 comparison(s). The range of follow up was from 1 to 24 months for the studies included in the whole network. 4) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to very 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. 5) 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: 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. 6) 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: 2 RCT(s) (N=414); 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 0 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 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=409); 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 9- 24 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, 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: 2 RCT(s) (N=149); 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 3-12 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 9) a)Number of studies included in the network: 122 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 2 RCT(s) (N=149); 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 3-12 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 risk of bias; b) Number of studies included in the network: 178 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 5 RCT(s) (N=717); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 11 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. 11) a)We rated down the certainty of evidence due to serious risk of bias; b)Number of studies included in the network: 222 RCTs; Number of studies directly comparing the intervention with usual care: 4 RCT(s) (N=275); 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 3-12 months in the studies directly comparing the self-management intervention versus usual care. 12) a) We rated down the certainty of evidence due to 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: 8 RCT(s) (N=1285); Number of comparison(s) informing the indirect estimate: 15 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.
References of studies informing direct evidence:
6) Rimmer-2013, VanWier-2011 7) Rimmer-2013, VanWier-2011 8) Kempf-2018a, Steinberg-2014b 9) Kempf-2018a,Steinberg-2014b 10) Haggerty-2017,Kempf-2018a,Mehring-2013,Steinberg-2014b,VanWier-2011 11) Kempf-2018a, Mehring-2013, Rimmer-2013, Steinberg-2014b 12) Bennett-2010, Haggerty-2017, Kempf-2018a, Mehring-2013, Pronk-2011, Rimmer-2013, Steinberg-2014b, VanWier-2011
|