Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25795688›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2015

The effectiveness of self-management support interventions for men with long-term conditions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Paul Galdas, Jennifer Fell, Peter Bower, Lisa Kidd, Christian Blickem, Kerri McPherson, Kate Hunt, Simon Gilbody, Gerry Richardson

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04438551 (Software Application for Low-Sodium Diet Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT04438551 nawithdrawnnot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Software Application for Low-Sodium Diet Trial (SALT): A Pilot Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of RochesterRan2021 to 2024Enrolled0ConditionsKidney Stone, HypernatriuriaArmsStandard dietary counseling, Mobile app
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Paul GaldasDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.
Jennifer FellDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.
Peter BowerNIHR School for Primary Care Research, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Lisa KiddSchool of Health and Life Sciences/Institute for Applied Health Research, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK.
Christian BlickemNIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) Greater Manchester, Centre for Primary Care, Institute of Population Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Kerri McPhersonSchool of Health and Life Sciences/Institute for Applied Health Research, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK.
Kate HuntMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Simon GilbodyDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.
Gerry RichardsonCentre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK.

Funding

Department of Health 12/5001/14Medical Research Council MC_UU_12017/12Medical Research Council MC_UU_12017/3
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo assess the effectiveness of self-management support interventions in men with long-term conditions.

methodsA quantitative systematic review with meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was searched to identify published reviews of self-management support interventions. Relevant reviews were screened to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of self-management support interventions conducted in men alone, or which analysed the effects of interventions by sex. REVIEW

methodsData on relevant outcomes, patient populations, intervention type and study quality were extracted. Quality appraisal was conducted using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Meta-analysis was conducted to compare the effects of interventions in men, women, and mixed-sex sub-groups.

results40 RCTs of self-management support interventions in men, and 20 eligible RCTs where an analysis by sex was reported, were included in the review. Meta-analysis suggested that physical activity, education, and peer support-based interventions have a positive impact on quality of life in men. However, there is currently insufficient evidence to make strong statements about whether self-management support interventions show larger, similar or smaller effects in men compared with women and mixed-sex groups.

conclusionsClinicians may wish to consider whether certain types of self-management support (eg, physical activity, education, peer support) are particularly effective in men, although more research is needed to fully determine and explore this.

Indexed as

ExerciseMen's HealthPatient Education as TopicQuality of LifeSelf CareSocial SupportChronic DiseaseFemaleHumansMalePRIMARY CAREPUBLIC HEALTH

Identifiers

PMID25795688
PMCPMC4368927

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.