a) This study had quite an elaborate design that was not always reported clearly and there were some contradictory statements.
b) The authors could have provided more information about the selection criteria of the sources of effectiveness information. No systematic review of the baseline data included in the model was conducted.
c) Common cost components to the intervention and comparator were excluded from the analysis, and this may bias the users who are going to allocate resources.
d) The assumptions of zero cost and zero benefit under the "do nothing" alternative is questionable.
e) The authors stated that they included travel costs to the patients, but the actual costs were not reported.
f) The compliance rate with the rapid C/T procedure, which was based on the authors' opinions,was not tested by sensitivity analysis.
g) A calculation of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio between the current and rapid C/T procedure would have been helpful, since rapid C/T has been shown to be more expensive and more effective than the current procedure.