a) The authors could have provided more information about the search strategy and the selection criteria of the clinical trials included in the review;
b) the method used to estimate benefit of risk reduction of hydralazine-isosorbide therapy vs standard therapy, by subtraction of the 15% and 14% estimates provided by the two most recent trial, was unsound;
c) since the authors intended to address a societal point of view, they would have had to include other costs such as patient's costs;
d) the authors' justification of the assumptionsand ranges used in the sensitive analysis was not satisfactory;
e) the authors' conclusion about the advantages of the enalapril therapy was weak and did not reflect the results of the cost-effectiveness analysis.