Interventions:
The interventions were adequately reported and appear to have been appropriate in the authors' setting. The comparator was usual practice and the alternative was a new option for emergency hormonal contraception.
Effectiveness/benefits:
The authors reported that the efficacy estimates for the two drugs were from a meta-analysis of the only two trials that compared them. Few details of these trials and the meta-analysis methods were provided, making it difficult to comment on the validity of the estimates. It was unclear if a systematic review was undertaken to ensure that all the best available evidence was analysed. The benefit measure was appropriate for the intervention, but will not allow comparisons with other health care interventions, with different outcome measures.
Costs:
The categories of costs were consistent with the stated perspective. The unit costs, resource use, and their sources were reported and appear to have been appropriate. Discounting was not necessary as the time horizon was less than one year.
Analysis and results:
The costs and benefits were synthesised, using an incremental approach and the results were clearly presented and discussed. A limited sensitivity analysis was performed, varying two of the model parameters; it remains unclear how robust the results were to changes in the other model inputs. The authors noted some omissions to their analysis, including the costs of home birth and neonatal care, but these were omitted for both the intervention and the comparator, making it unlikely to have affected the study results.
Concluding remarks:
On the whole, the study was well reported and the methods were valid; the authors' conclusions seem appropriate.