Solomon‐Pennsylvania 1994.

Methods	Allocation: randomised. Design: single centre. Duration: 12 months. Country: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. Not entering meta‐regression.
Participants	Diagnosis*: seriously mentally ill (schizophrenia, affective or personality disorder according to DSM‐III‐R). N = 200. Setting: CMHC. Age: mean 35.2 years (SD 9.4). Sex: 86.5% M. Ethnicity: Afro‐American 81% History: i. about to be released from prison, ii. homeless (i.e. situational, episodically, or chronically without a domicile or if jail detention resulted in the loss of a stable housing situation), iii. state hospitalisation ≧ 60 days in previous 2 years or a significant amount of outpatient treatment, iv. GAF ≦ 40 or GAF ≦ 60 if age ≦ 35 years, v. written informed consent.
Interventions	1**. ICM: Assertive Community Treatment according to the Stein and Test model. Caseload: 1:8‐12. N = 60. 2**. ICM: Intensive Case Management provided from an individual forensic case manager who worked at CMHC, but as individual rather than as part of a treatment team. Caseload: not available. N = 60. 3. Standard care: from local CMHC (2 clients received ICM services at times during the year in the study). N = 80.
Outcomes	Global state: leaving the study early. Social functioning: imprisonment***. Unable to use ‐ Service use: days in hospital, hospitalisation (data not available); drug and alcohol use Addiction Severity Index (data not available); accomodation, employment, arrest (data not available), Pattison Psychosocial Network Inventory (data not available). Mental state: BPRS (data not available). Quality of life: Lehman's Quality of Life Interview (objective and subjective components).
Notes	*Schizophrenia 82.5%, major affective disorder 10%, other (unspecified psychotic disorder and personality disorder) 3%, substance abuse disorder 52%. N = 200. **We considered both arms as a single intervention. ***Attrition in the control group > 50%.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Randomised. Authors reported that "slightly higher number of clients were assigned to the control treatment", but it is not clear if it was a stratified randomisation. No further details provided.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No details
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Primary outcome: not available. Secondary outcome: clinician/participant mediated ‐ rating ‐ Unclear.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Participants and personnel not blinded.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Blinding not reported.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Incomplete reporting of missing data (number of missing data is reported, but reasons not provided).
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	High risk	Some listed outcomes of interest are not reported (i.e. service use, quality of life, etc.).
Other bias	Low risk	No evidence of the presence of other bias.