Table 2. Summary of meta-analysis finding.

Overall/subgroup/sensitivity analysesa	No. of patients (trials)	Effect sizes [95% CI]	Quality of the evidence GRADE
Telephone-based interventions (with educational materials) vs. usual care
Pain (primary outcome)
Overall analysis	1,357 (5 trials)	−0.27 [−0.53, −0.01]b	⊕⊕⊕⊖ Moderatec
Patient condition
Osteoarthritis	1,212 (3 trials)	−0.16 [−0.47, 0.14]
Spinal pain	145 (2 trials)	−0.55 [−0.92, −0.19]b
Sensitivity analyses
Excluding small trials	1,212 (3 trials)	−0.16 [−0.47, 0.14]
Disability (primary outcome)
Overall analysis	1,537 (7 trials)	−0.21 [−0.40, −0.02]b	⊕⊕⊕⊖ Moderatec
Patient condition
Osteoarthritis	1,417 (5 trials)	−0.13 [−0.30, 0.04]
Spinal pain	120 (2 trials)	−0.64 [−1.01, −0.27]b
Subgroup analyses
Intervention type
Single component	201 (2 trials)	−0.30 [−0.59, −0.01]b
Multicomponent	1,492 (5 trials)	−0.18 [−0.42, 0.06]
Sensitivity analyses
Excluding small trials	1,212 (3 trials)	−0.10 [−0.34, 0.14]
Psychological symptoms (secondary outcome)
Overall analysis	1,293 (5 trials)	0.03 [−0.10, 0.16]	⊕⊕⊕⊖ Moderated
Patient condition
Osteoarthritis	1,242 (4 trials)	0.03 [−0.13, 0.19]
Sensitivity analyses
Excluding small trials	1,212 (3 trials)	0.02 [−0.16, 0.20]
Self-efficacy (secondary outcome)
Overall analysis	571 (3 trials)	0.20 [0.03, 0.38]b	⊕⊕⊕⊕ High
Patient condition
Osteoarthritis	545 (2 trials)	0.19 [0.01, 0.36]b
Subgroup analysis
Intervention type
Multicomponent	545 (2 trials)	0.19 [0.01, 0.36]b
Weight loss (secondary outcome)
Overall analysis	697 (2 trials)	−0.07 [−0.25, 0.11]	⊕⊕⊕⊖ Moderated
Telephone plus face-to-face interventions vs. usual care
Pain (primary outcome)
Overall analysis	259 (3 trials)	−0.08 [−0.32, 0.16]	⊕⊕⊕⊖ Moderated
Patient condition
Spinal pain	225 (2 trials)	−0.09 [−0.36, 0.17]
Disability (primary outcome)
Overall analysis	398 (4 trials)	−0.08 [−0.28, 0.12]	⊕⊕⊕⊖ Moderated
Patient condition
Spinal pain	364 (3 trials)	−0.11 [−0.31, 0.10]
Subgroup analyses
Spinal pain duration (chronic)	225 (2 trials)	0.00 [−0.26, 0.26]
Psychological symptoms (secondary outcome)
Overall analysis	298 (2 trials)	−0.12 [−0.35, 0.11]	⊕⊕⊕⊖ Moderated
Telephone plus comprehensive face-to-face interventions vs. face-to-face interventions alone
Pain (primary outcome)
Overall analysise	513 (3 trials)	−0.13 [−0.30, 0.04]	⊕⊕⊕⊖ Moderated
Disability (primary outcome)
Overall analysise	513 (3 trials)	−0.06 [−0.31, 0.19]	⊕⊕⊕⊖ Moderated
Psychological symptoms (secondary outcome)
Overall analysise	345 (2 trials)	0.11 [−0.10, 0.32]	⊕⊕⊕⊖ Moderated

Notes:

^aPlanned subgroup and sensitivity analyses were not conducted due to insufficient study numbers: telephone-based interventions (with educational materials) vs. usual care (n = 38); patient condition (spinal pain (n = 3)), by intervention type (single (n = 4) and multicomponent (n = 4)), by modality (telephone (n = 5) and videoconferencing (n = 5)), by condition duration (acute (n = 5) and chronic (n = 5)), by high risk of bias (n = 5), and by trial size (n = 2). Telephone plus face-to-face interventions vs. usual care (n = 28): patient condition (osteoarthritis (n = 3), spinal pain (n = 1)), by intervention type (single (n = 3) and multicomponent (n = 3)), by modality (telephone (n = 3) and videoconferencing (n = 3)), by condition duration (acute (n = 3) and chronic (n = 2)), by high risk of bias (n = 4), and by trial size (n = 3). Telephone plus comprehensive face-to-face interventions vs. face-to-face interventions alone (n = 24); by patient condition (osteoarthritis (n = 3), spinal pain (n = 3)), by intervention type (singular (n = 3) and multicomponent (n = 3)), by modality (telephone (n = 3) and videoconferencing (n = 3)), by high risk of bias (n = 3) and by trial size (n = 3).

^bSignificant at p < 0.05.

^cDowngraded due to inconsistency of results: I² > 50%.

^dDowngraded due to imprecision: the confidence intervals contained the null value.

^eOne study (De Rezende et al., 2016) which compared two interventions entered into RevMan.