In the last decade the concept of geriatric evaluation and management (GEM) has been widely discussed in the literature. Studies of GEM have occurred primarily in three settings: inpatient units, outpatient clinics, and specialized types of home care. We have reviewed the literature, focusing on randomized trials, to determine the strength of the evidence for the efficacy of these interventions. Two single‐site randomized controlled trials of inpatient GEM units have been conducted and indicate that such units that provide care to targeted disabled older patients probably have a favorable impact on subsequent physical function, rates of institutionalization, and mortality. Two randomized trials of inpatient GEM consultation teams have been conducted. The trial that did not target high‐risk individuals showed no benefit while the trial that did target an at‐risk group showed that those receiving the service had improvements in mental status and short‐term mortality. The results of randomized trials of outpatient GEM clinics to date have been unimpressive. Two trials of in‐home GEM by a trained observer tended to show that the service resulted in a reduction in mortalityTo date randomized trials of GEM have been very heterogeneous in terms of the type of assessment and subsequent care, the site in which services are delivered, and the manner in which patients are selected for the studies. This limits the ability to compare and extrapolate across studies. In the future there is a need to better clarify the selection of study participants, the exact structure of the assessment intervention provided, and the elements of successful interventions that may be most critical to insuring a goo