Interventions:
The interventions were appropriate and well described. The comparator was the current practice in the setting. These strategies are likely to be relevant in other settings.
Effectiveness/benefits:
The sources used to derive the clinical estimates were well described and appear to have been appropriate for the study question. The use of randomised controlled trials as sources for the effectiveness data was appropriate given the strengths of their design. QALYs were appropriately used as the measure of benefit, but their derivation methods were not reported.
Costs:
The authors clearly defined the perspective, and appear to have included all those costs relevant to this perspective. Where indirect costs were not included, the authors gave the reason. The costs were presented as micro-costs, detailing the cost items, and this allows the possibility of replicating the results in other settings. Details of the price year, data sources, and discounting were provided.
Analysis and results:
The authors conducted an incremental analysis and the results were adequately presented. Sensitivity analyses were conducted on the modelling assumptions and parameters, which enhances the generalisability of the findings. The methods were well reported and the authors provided a thorough discussion of the limitations and weaknesses of their study.
Concluding remarks:
The cost-effectiveness analysis was well performed and clearly and transparently reported in terms of the model inputs and results. The authors' conclusions seem to be appropriate.