Xuxi Zhang

0.3 lower (0.53 to 0.07 lower) Follow ‐ up during the intervention 495 (3 studies) ⊕⊕⊕⊝ MODERATE 10 due to risk of bias The mean follow ‐ up during the intervention in the intervention groups was 0.37 lower (0.59 to 0.15 lower) Follow ‐ up immidiately after the intervention 3138 (17 studies) ⊕⊕⊕⊝ MODERATE 3 due to imprecision The mean follow ‐ up immidiately after the intervention in the intervention groups was 0.21 lower (0.31 to 0.11 lower) Follow ‐ up 1 ‐ 6 months after the end of intervention 1012 (5 studies) ⊕⊕⊕⊕ HIGH 11 The mean follow ‐ up 1 ‐ 6 months after the end of intervention in the intervention groups was 0.06 lower (0.26 lower to 0.15 higher) Follow ‐ up>6 months after the end of intervention 290 (2 studies) ⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW 5,12 due to risk of bias, imprecision The mean follow ‐ up>6 months after the end of intervention in the intervention groups was 0.01 higher (0.32 lower to 0.34 higher) *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval. GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate. 1 Four studies [13; 21; 28; 31] did not provide sd of mean of HbA1c after intervention, so we used the corresponding sd values at baseline. In 17 studies [13 ‐ 15; 17 ‐ 27; 29; 31; 32], we used the HbA1c results of 0 month follow ‐ up to represent the effect of intervention. However, 3 studies [16; 28; 30] only provided the results of 1.75 ‐ month follow ‐ up, 4.5 ‐ month follow ‐ up and 10.25 follow ‐ up respectively. Therefore, for these 3 studies, we used the corresponding results of each study to represent the effect of intervention. 2 One studies [28] did not provide sd of mean of HbA1c after intervention, so we used the corresponding sd values at baseline.3 studies [16; 28; 30] only provided the results of 1.75 ‐ month follow ‐ up, 4.5 ‐ month follow ‐ up and 10.25 follow ‐ up respectively. Therefore, for these 3 studies, we used the corresponding results of each study to represent the effect of intervention. 3 Three studies [13; 21; 31] did not provide sd of mean of HbA1c after intervention, so we used the corresponding sd values at baseline. 4 Four studies [13; 21; 28; 31] did not provide sd of mean of HbA1c after intervention, so we used the corresponding sd values at baseline. Two studies [28; 30] only provided the results of4.5 ‐ month follow ‐ up and 10.25 follow ‐ up respectively. Therefore, for these 2 studies, we used the corresponding results of each study to represent the effect of intervention. 5 The number of studies in this group is limited. 6 One study [16] only provided the results of 1.75 ‐ month.Therefore, we used the corresponding results of this study to represent the effect of intervention. 7 One studies [21] did not provide sd of mean of HbA1c after intervention, so we used the corresponding sd values at baseline. 8 All studies [28; 30] in this subgroup only provided the results of4.5 ‐ month follow ‐ up and 10.25 follow ‐ up respectively. Therefore, for these 2 studies, we used the corresponding results of each study to represent the effect of intervention. 9 Two studies [13; 31] did not provide sd of mean of HbA1c after intervention, so we used the corresponding sd values at baseline. 10 Results of two follow ‐ up intervals came from the same study [15]. 11 One studies [13] did not provide sd of mean of HbA1c after intervention, so we used the corresponding sd values at baseline 12 There are only two studies in this subgroup and one studies(13) did not provide sd of mean of HbA1c after intervention. We used the corresponding sd values of this study [13] at baseline 156 Chapter 6