Interventions:
The interventions were described in detail, but the authors did not discuss the usual practice.
Effectiveness/benefits:
The effectiveness data were collected from a well-designed RCT, which should have ensured their validity. The strengths of the trial included comparable baseline characteristics for the two intervention groups, power calculations, and an intention-to-treat approach.
Costs:
The authors did not report the perspective, but the study appears to have been carried out from a societal perspective as both health care and productivity costs were considered. The data on resource use and some costs were from the trial, which ensured the accuracy of these estimates. No discounting was performed because the time horizon was less than one year. The cost analysis was not reported in detail, but the authors provided additional online data on the resource use and costs.
Analysis and results:
A synthesis of the costs and benefits was not performed. The authors did not evaluate the uncertainty in their results, but conducted extensive statistical analyses on the inputs. The findings were clearly reported and discussed. The authors highlighted the strengths and limitations of their analysis.
Concluding remarks:
On the whole, the study was well conducted and satisfactorily reported. The authors' conclusions appear to be appropriate.