Cochrane · systematic review · CD010395
Remote and web 2.0 interventions for promoting physical activity
Foster, C, Richards, J, Thorogood, M, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2013 · Cochrane Library
HeartAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
5
current version
GRADE rated
5
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 4 · 80%High 1 · 20%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Remote and web 2.0 versus control for promoting physical activity
Population: patients with promoting physical activity
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Cardio‐respiratory fitness: 12 months Remote and web 2.0 vs control | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 444 participants | High |
Dichotomous outcomes: 12 months Self‐reported physical activity questionnaire Remote and web 2.0 vs control | OR 1.42 [1.21, 1.66] | 1 study · 1089 participants | Moderate |
Dichotomous outcomes: 24 months Self‐reported physical activity questionnaire Remote and web 2.0 vs control | OR 1.27 [0.99, 1.63] | 1 study · 1088 participants | Moderate |
Self‐reported physical activity: 24 months Self‐reported physical activity questionnaire Remote and web 2.0 vs control | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 1049 participants | Moderate |
Self‐reported physical activity: 12 months Remote and web 2.0 vs control | no estimate extracted | 9 studies · 4547 participants | Moderate |