title: Assessing the evidence on case management.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Evidence on the impact of case management is contradictory.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To discuss two different systematic reviews (one conducted by the authors and one conducted through the Cochrane collaboration) that came to contradictory conclusions about the impact of case management in mental health services.
  
  
  METHODS
  We summarised the findings of the two reviews with respect to case management effectiveness, examined key methodological differences between the two approaches and discuss the impact of these on the validity of the results.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The differences in conclusions between the two reviews result from the differences in inclusion criteria, namely non-randomised trials, data from unpublished scales and data from variables with skewed distributions. The theoretical and empirical effects of these are discussed.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Systematic reviewers may face a trade-off between the application of strict criteria for the inclusion of studies and the amount of data available for analysis and hence statistical power. The available research suggests that case management is generally effective.
authors.affiliation: Brotherhood of St Laurence, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. sziguras @bsl.org.au
authors.forename: S J
authors.initials: SJ
authors.lastname: Ziguras
authors.forename: G W
authors.initials: GW
authors.lastname: Stuart
authors.forename: A C
authors.initials: AC
authors.lastname: Jackson
mesh_terms: D019090:Case Management; D019317:Evidence-Based Medicine; D006801:Humans; D001523:Mental Disorders / Q000628:therapy*; D008605:Mental Health Services / Q000458:organization & administration*; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; D012196:Review Literature as Topic