a) There are no reasons given by the author why the two studies of cefmenoxime, on which this analysis was based, were selected. b) Effectiveness data were derived from two studies, reporting results for intervention from and comparator respectively. This method is of doubtful validity. c) The author claims that the distribution of intensive care unit patients between the groups receiving the standard and dual individualized dose may explain why DI appears to cost more per patient even though it reduces the median duration of antibiotic therapy. This may be so, but this fact must also seriously question the comparability of the groups and therefore all of the subsequent analysis. d) The author's method for calculating the cost savings of DI over standard dosing, assuming an equal distribution of intensive care unit patients between groups, is unclear. e)To calculate the benefits in the economic analysis, the median antibiotic length of stay was used as a proxy of the successful rate. This was not necessary since the clinical outcomes could have been used. Nevertheless, since the difference in clinical outcomes and their proxies was not statistically significant, no calculation of the (incremental) cost-effectiveness ratio was necessary. Conclusions could have been based on the difference of costs only.