Interventions:
Both the intervention and comparator were clearly described and the comparator was appropriate as it represented current practice in the authors' setting.
Effectiveness/benefits:
The effectiveness data were derived from a number of published studies. Although the methods used to identify the relevant studies were not reported, the studies appear to have been of a relatively high quality. For example, the estimate of the efficacy of the smoking cessation programme came from a systematic review of randomised controlled trial data, and cohort studies provided estimates of transition probabilities between health states. However, many of the actual estimates used to populate the model were not reported in the paper. The measure of benefit was life-years saved, which was appropriate for the intervention.
Costs:
The analysis of costs was consistent with the authors' stated perspective and the categories of costs included in the analysis. The costs were presented as macro-categories and a breakdown of unit prices and resources was not given, which limits the generalisability of the analysis. The price year, details of discounting and the exchange rate used were all adequately reported.
Analysis and results:
The model structure was clearly described with the authors providing all relevant details and modelling assumptions. A synthesis was not undertaken possibly because the intervention was the dominant strategy, that is, less costly and more effective. The impact of uncertainty in the model parameters was extensively explored through one-way, two-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses and the results of these were clearly reported. The authors noted a number of limitations to their analyses, in particular the exclusion of relapse rates.
Concluding remarks:
Despite limited reporting around some model parameters the methodology of the study seems appropriate and comprehensive. The conclusions reached by the authors appear appropriate.
