OBJECTIVES: The cost-effectiveness of screening interventions is typically examined using simulation models. These permit comparisons of multiple screening strategies. Cost-effectiveness estimates from such models depend, in part, on what alternatives analysts choose to compare and how the simulation results are interpreted. Sometimes the comparisons and interpretations made are inappropriate, which can obscure evidence and lead to the wrong policy conclusions. The objective of this study is to explain eight simple steps that analysts can take to avoid these problems. METHODS: We use examples from the literature to show how these problems can arise and to explain how they can be avoided. The examples chosen are from a recent systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of cervical screening. RESULTS: The eight recommendations are: (i) report costs and effects, rather than just incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs); (ii) present a cost-effectiveness plane; (iii) report cost and effects for all strategies, not just those on the efficient frontier; (iv) do not report ICERs for dominated strategies; (v) report costs and effects to sufficient significant figures; (vi) include all simulated strategies in the basecase analysis; (vii) do not report ICERs for strategies for which it is anticipated the inclusion of additional strategies would lead to significant changes in the estimated ratio; (viii) when there are multiple factors to vary in a screening programme, only vary these factors one at a time when creating alternative strategies. CONCLUSIONS: The cost-effectiveness estimates from simulation models are particularly dependent on the choices taken by analysts regarding both the modelling of alternatives and the interpretation of the cost and effects estimates. Although the analytical flaws informing our recommendations might seem obvious, they occur with surprising frequency in the literature. The simple eight-item list presented here will support better use of screening models in identifying optimal policy choices.