Interventions:
The two interventions were reasonably well reported and relevant to the authors' setting.
Effectiveness/benefits:
While the sources searched to identify the effectiveness estimates were not reported, information on the search terms and exclusion criteria were provided. The details of the studies selected were not given, making it difficult to comment on their validity, but they were available in an on-line appendix.
Costs:
The authors reported that a societal perspective was adopted, but only the direct medical costs were included. The source for the cost data was reported, but these costs were presented as macro-categories, which reduces the possibility of replicating the analysis for other settings. Adjustments to the cost data, including the price year and discounting, were reported.
Analysis and results:
The model structure was presented graphically along with all the relevant details and modelling assumptions. The authors conducted an appropriate incremental analysis and the full results were presented. One-way and a multi-way sensitivity analyses were conducted on the modelling assumptions and parameters, enhancing the generalisability of the findings. The results were reported in detail and in their discussion the authors appropriately noted the limitations of their study.
Concluding remarks:
The quality of the study was satisfactory. Despite some limitations to the clinical data, the authors presented a reasonably transparent analysis and it is likely that the results reflected the available evidence.