Interventions:
Both interventions were clearly explained. It appeared that standard practice (first-line platinum-based chemotherapy) in the authors’ setting (China) was included.
Effectiveness/benefits:
The effectiveness parameters came from a single clinical trial, but the authors did not state whether this was the only such trial. If other relevant trials existed, then their exclusion should have been justified. The source of the utility data was referenced, but no details were provided on its methods or other details. There was no indication that the literature was reviewed for utility values.
Costs:
The analysis of the costs was performed from the perspective of the Chinese health care system. It appeared that all the relevant categories had been included. All values were discounted at 3% rate. Some sources were local, but were not defined in detail.
Analysis and results:
The model structure was described in detail, including a diagram. Model parameters and their sources were adequately reported. The authors investigated uncertainty in the model parameters through probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses; ranges and parameter distributions were reported. The authors presented their results in full providing a tornado graph, a cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and a scatter plot with the results of the simulations. The results were compared with those from related published studies, although these did not include recombinant-human endostatin.
Concluding remarks:
Although reporting of a few items could have been better, the conclusions reached by the authors appear appropriate.