Table 2

Quality assessment of the studies
Author Overall quality Methodology quality
Quality control Randomization Comparability Follow-up rates Dropout Blinding assessor Analysis
Lam (2010) High quality + + + 90.2% + + +
Yordi (1997) Moderate quality + + + 34.0% + ? ?
Newcomer (1999) Low quality + + + 36.0% ? ? ?
Applebaum (1988) Low quality ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Rabiner (1995) Low quality - ? ? 100% + ? ?
Lowenstein (2000) Moderate quality + + + 95.0% + ? ?
Eloniemi-Sulkava (2001) Moderate quality + + + 52.0% + ? ?
Applebaum (2002) Moderate quality + + + 82.9% + ? ?
Shapiro (2002) Moderate quality + + + 50.0% + - ?
Challis (1985) Low quality + - + 47.0% + ? ?
Marek (2006) Low quality + - + 71.8% + - ?
Specht (2009) Low quality + - - 34.9% + - ?
Onder (2007) Low quality + - - 71.6% + - ?
Miller (1985) Low quality - - - ? ? ? ?
Marshall, (1999) Low quality + ? - 91.5% + - ?

Note:

Quality control: Whether case management interventions were described clearly;

Group comparability: Whether baseline characteristics of the intervention and control groups were similar;

Follow -up rate: Whether the percentage of follow-up was complete;

Dropouts: Whether dropouts were clearly enumerated and/or compared with those completed cases at baseline;

Blinding assessor: Whether assessment was conducted by independent interviewers blinded to group or objective outcomes;

Analysis: Whether intention-to-treat analysis was applied

“+” means “yes”, “-” means “no”, “?” means “no details”

High quality studies: providing full information on all the seven items (follow-up rate being over 90% was regarded as “full information”); moderate quality studies: providing information on at least four items; low quality studies: providing information on fewer than four items.

You et al.

You et al. BMC Health Services Research 2012 12:395   doi:10.1186/1472-6963-12-395

Open Data