The paper was intended to illustrate the convenience of using a specific cost-effectiveness outcomemeasure in decision analysis. It was a descriptive work which used, as illustration, an example of clinical experience using assumptions that presumably relate to common sense, if this expression is allowed. In synthesis of costs and benefits, the author used a treatment threshold measure, calculated as C/(C+B), where C stands for costs and B for benefits. The authorpresented the study as a cost-benefit analysis. However, "benefits" are not correctly calculated: the author used an effectiveness result (20% of decreased risk of hip fracture) and calculated the expected value of cost savings. No cost discounting was included in the analysis. The author did not include an adjustment for inflation in the economic analysis and justified this by saying that adjustments coming from inflation "tend to have little impact on [treatment] thresholds because they apply to both the costs of treatment and the costs of the fracture".