Cost-effectiveness of low-dose aspirin for the prevention of preterm birth: a prospective study of the Global Network for Women's and Children's Health Research.

BACKGROUND: Premature birth is associated with an increased risk of mortality and morbidity, and strategies to prevent preterm birth are few in number and resource intensive. In 2020, the ASPIRIN trial showed the efficacy of low-dose aspirin (LDA) in nulliparous, singleton pregnancies for the prevention of preterm birth. We sought to investigate the cost-effectiveness of this therapy in low-income and middle-income countries. METHODS: In this post-hoc, prospective, cost-effectiveness study, we constructed a probabilistic decision tree model to compare the benefits and costs of LDA treatment compared with standard care using primary data and published results from the ASPIRIN trial. In this analysis from a health-care sector perspective, we considered the costs and effects of LDA treatment, pregnancy outcomes, and neonatal health-care use. We did sensitivity analyses to understand the effect of the price of the LDA regimen, and the effectiveness of LDA in reducing both preterm birth and perinatal death. FINDINGS: In model simulations, LDA was associated with 141 averted preterm births, 74 averted perinatal deaths, and 31 averted hospitalisations per 10 000 pregnancies. The reduction in hospitalisation resulted in a cost of US$248 per averted preterm birth, $471 per averted perinatal death, and $15·95 per disability-adjusted life year. INTERPRETATION: LDA treatment in nulliparous, singleton pregnancies is a low-cost, effective treatment to reduce preterm birth and perinatal death. The low cost per disability-adjusted life year averted strengthens the evidence in support of prioritising the implementation of LDA in publicly funded health care in low-income and middle-income countries. FUNDING: Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

Expected Organizational Costs for Inserting Prevalence Information Into Lumbar Spine Imaging Reports.

BACKGROUND: Modifying physician behavior to more closely align with guideline-based care can be challenging. Few effective strategies resulting in appropriate spine-related health care have been reported. The Lumbar Imaging With Reporting of Epidemiology (LIRE) intervention did not result in reductions in spine care but did in opioid prescriptions written. OBJECTIVES: To estimate organizational resource needs and costs associated with implementing a pragmatic, decision support-type intervention that inserted age- and modality-matched prevalence information for common lumbar spine imaging findings, using site-based resource use data from the LIRE trial. RESEARCH DESIGN: Time and cost estimation associated with implementing the LIRE intervention in a health organization. SUBJECTS: Providers and patients assessed in the LIRE trial. MEASURES: Expected personnel costs required to implement the LIRE intervention. RESULTS: Annual salaries were converted to daily average per person costs, ranging from $400 to $2,200 per day (base case) for personnel (range: $300-$2,600). Estimated total average cost for implementing LIRE was $5,009 (range: $2,651-$12,020), including conducting pilot testing with providers. Costs associated with a small amount of time for a radiologist (6-12 hours) and imaging-ordering providers (1-8 hours each) account for approximately 75% of the estimated total cost. CONCLUSIONS: The process of implementing an intervention for lumbar spine imaging reports containing age- and modality-appropriate epidemiological benchmarks for common imaging findings required radiologists, imaging-ordering providers, information technology specialists, and limited testing and monitoring. The LIRE intervention seems to be a relatively low-cost, evidence-based, complementary tool that can be easily integrated into the reporting of spine imaging.

The Effect of Including Benchmark Prevalence Data of Common Imaging Findings in Spine Image Reports on Health Care Utilization Among Adults Undergoing Spine Imaging: A Stepped-Wedge Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Lumbar spine imaging frequently reveals findings that may seem alarming but are likely unrelated to pain. Prior work has suggested that inserting data on the prevalence of imaging findings among asymptomatic individuals into spine imaging reports may reduce unnecessary subsequent interventions. Objective: To evaluate the impact of including benchmark prevalence data in routine spinal imaging reports on subsequent spine-related health care utilization and opioid prescriptions. Design, Setting, and Participants: This stepped-wedge, pragmatic randomized clinical trial included 250 401 adult participants receiving care from 98 primary care clinics at 4 large health systems in the United States. Participants had imaging of their backs between October 2013 and September 2016 without having had spine imaging in the prior year. Data analysis was conducted from November 2018 to October 2019. Interventions: Either standard lumbar spine imaging reports (control group) or reports containing age-appropriate prevalence data for common imaging findings in individuals without back pain (intervention group). Main Outcomes and Measures: Health care utilization was measured in spine-related relative value units (RVUs) within 365 days of index imaging. The number of subsequent opioid prescriptions written by a primary care clinician was a secondary outcome, and prespecified subgroup analyses examined results by imaging modality. Results: We enrolled 250 401 participants (of whom 238 886 [95.4%] met eligibility for this analysis, with 137 373 [57.5%] women and 105 497 [44.2%] aged >60 years) from 3278 primary care clinicians. A total of 117 455 patients (49.2%) were randomized to the control group, and 121 431 patients (50.8%) were randomized to the intervention group. There was no significant difference in cumulative spine-related RVUs comparing intervention and control conditions through 365 days. The adjusted median (interquartile range) RVU for the control group was 3.56 (2.71-5.12) compared with 3.53 (2.68-5.08) for the intervention group (difference, -0.7%; 95% CI, -2.9% to 1.5%; P = .54). Rates of subsequent RVUs did not differ between groups by specific clinical findings in the report but did differ by type of index imaging (eg, computed tomography: difference, -29.3%; 95% CI, -42.1% to -13.5%; magnetic resonance imaging: difference, -3.4%; 95% CI, -8.3% to 1.8%). We observed a small but significant decrease in the likelihood of opioid prescribing from a study clinician within 1 year of the intervention (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.00; P = .04). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, inserting benchmark prevalence information in lumbar spine imaging reports did not decrease subsequent spine-related RVUs but did reduce subsequent opioid prescriptions. The intervention text is simple, inexpensive, and easily implemented. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02015455.

Prevalence and Financial Impact of Claustrophobia, Anxiety, Patient Motion, and Other Patient Events in Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

Claustrophobia, other anxiety reactions, excessive motion, and other unanticipated patient events in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) not only delay or preclude diagnostic-quality imaging but can also negatively affect the patient experience. In addition, by impeding MRI workflow, they may affect the finances of an imaging practice. This review article offers an overview of the various types of patient-related unanticipated events that occur in MRI, along with estimates of their frequency of occurrence as documented in the available literature. In addition, the financial implications of these events are discussed from a microeconomic perspective, primarily from the point of view of a radiology practice or hospital, although associated limitations and other economic viewpoints are also included. Efforts to minimize these unanticipated patient events can potentially improve not only patient satisfaction and comfort but also an imaging practice's operational efficiency and diagnostic capabilities.

A targeted systematic review of cost analyses for implementation of simulation-based education in healthcare.

Over the past two decades, there has been an increase in the use of simulation-based education for training healthcare providers in technical and non-technical skills. Simulation education and research programs have mostly focused on the impact on clinical knowledge and improvement of technical skills rather than on cost. To study and characterize existing evidence to inform multi-stakeholder investment decisions, we performed a systematic review of the literature on costs in simulation-based education in medicine in general and in neonatal resuscitation as a particular focus. We conducted a systematic literature search of the PubMed database using two targeted queries. The first searched for cost analyses of healthcare simulation-based education more broadly, and the second was more narrowly focused on cost analyses of neonatal resuscitation training. The more general query identified 47 qualified articles. The most common specialties for education interventions were surgery (51%); obstetrics, gynecology, or pediatrics (11%); medicine, nursing, or medical school (11%); and urology (9%), accounting for over 80% of articles. The neonatal resuscitation query identified five qualified articles. The two queries identified seven large-scale training implementation studies, one in the United States and six in low-income countries. There were two articles each from Tanzania and India and one article each from Zambia and Ghana. Methods, definitions, and reported estimates varied across articles, implying interpretation, comparison, and generalization of program effects are challenging. More work is needed to understand the costs, processes, and outcomes likely to make simulation-based education programs cost-effective and scalable. To optimize return on investments in training, assessing resource requirements, associated costs, and subsequent outcomes can inform stakeholders about the potential sustainability of SBE programs. Healthcare stakeholders and decision makers will benefit from more transparent, consistent, rigorous, and explicit assessments of simulation-based education program development and implementation costs in low- and high-income countries.

Clinical and Payer-Based Analysis of Value of Dual-Energy Computed Tomography for Workup of Incidental Abdominal Findings.

OBJECTIVE: To perform a clinical and payer-based analysis of the value of dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) for workup of incidental abdominal findings. METHODS: This was a single-center, retrospectively designed, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant study approved by our institutional review board. Sixty-nine examinations in 69 patients (45 men, 24 women; mean age, 57.7 years) who underwent single-phase postcontrast abdominal DECT studies between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2017, were included. Two radiologists, blinded to study objective and design, reviewed all cases and identified incidental abdominal findings needing further imaging. All incidental findings were reviewed by 2 other investigators, who determined whether an imaging-based diagnosis could be made using DECT virtual noncontrast images and iodine maps. Additional studies and associated payer-reimbursement amounts avoided by use of DECT were estimated. All imaging costs were estimated based on the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services reimbursement amounts. RESULTS: Thirty-four incidental findings (renal mass, n = 20; adrenal nodule, n = 8; pancreatic cystic lesions, n = 3; others, n = 3) were identified in 19 (27.5%) of 69 patients. Dual-energy computed tomography characterized 27 incidental findings in 15 patients and accounted for cost savings of 15 additional imaging examinations (abdominal magnetic resonance imaging, n = 11; abdominal computed tomography, n = 4). Based on Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services reimbursement amounts, we estimated that, by abolishing the need for additional imaging use, DECT saved US $84.95 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: Dual-energy computed tomography can provide an imaging-based diagnosis of incidental abdominal findings, otherwise incompletely characterized on routine abdominal computed tomography, in approximately 21% of patients. In select patients, the monetary savings from abolishing additional imaging may reduce payer costs associated with use of DECT.

Imaging Intussusception in Children's Hospitals in the United States: Trends, Outcomes, and Costs.

OBJECTIVE: To describe imaging utilization, outcomes, and cost in the management of intussusception between 2010 and 2017 in pediatric hospitals in the United States. METHODS: All children (under 18 years of age) with a primary diagnosis of intussusception in a large administrative database were identified. Demographics, imaging, and costs were described. RESULTS: There were 17,032 children (63.3% boys, 36.7% girls, mean age: 3.2 years) that had 20,655 hospital encounters for intussusception, and 88.5% were <5 years of age. The average length of stay was 2.8 days (median: 1 day), with rates of intensive care unit admission, 3.7%; 90-day readmission, 10.5%; and mortality, 0.2%. The surgical rate was 19.6%, and 93.5% (n = 19,301) of patients underwent imaging: 87.2% (n = 16,822) received ultrasound, 69.1% (n = 13,329) had fluoroscopy, 59% (n = 11,380) had abdominal radiographs, and 8.8% (n = 1,696) had CT. The reduction success rate for fluoroscopy was 77.9%. Surgery was more common in rural patients (26.8% versus 18.7% in urban patients, P < .001). Median encounter costs were $2,675 (interquartile range: $1,637-$5,465). Imaging cost represented a quarter (median $680, interquartile range: $372-1,069) of all costs. Higher costs (median) were associated with longer length of stay (<3 days: $858 versus >3 days: $5,342; use of CT ($4,168 versus $943 in patients without a CT), and surgery ($4,434 versus $860 without surgery). CONCLUSION: The management of intussusception is mainly nonsurgical, most frequently involving imaging with ultrasound and fluoroscopy, and resulting in excellent outcomes in the great majority of the cases. Despite playing a central role for diagnosis and management, imaging only represents a fraction of total cost.

Use of ultrasound and mHealth to improve perinatal outcomes in low and middle income countries.

The explosion of mobile health and portable obstetric ultrasound interventions in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) reflects the optimism that technology can help reduce persistently high rates of maternal and neonatal mortality and morbidity in these settings. While these technology-driven interventions have had success in improving aspects of antenatal and perinatal care, they have not clearly demonstrated reductions in mortality. The expanding synergy between mobile health (mHealth) and ultrasound technology shows promise to enhance care, but it will likely take combining these technological advances with system-wide approaches that also address referral patterns and infrastructure barriers to improve outcomes.

Impact of co-morbidities on resource use and adherence to guidelines among commercially insured adults with new visits for back pain.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To assess if co-morbidity is associated with higher use of back-related care and adherence to back pain guidelines. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using administrative claims data from 2007-2011. We included individuals ≥18 years with an index visit for back pain. Co-morbidities were measured 12 months prior to index. Co-morbidity burden was measured using Quan's Co-morbidity Index. Co-morbidities categories were measured using chronic condition indicators from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Total lumbar spine-related resource use for three years was ascertained using procedure codes. A clustering algorithm identified higher long-term utilizer. We identified initial use from day 0-42 for several categories of spine-related care. We used logistic regression to test the association between co-morbidities and resource use. RESULTS: Greater co-morbidity burden was associated with higher long-term spine-related resource use. Those with ≥2 on Quan's Co-morbidity Index had 29% higher odds of being a high back-specific resource user compared to those with no co-morbidities [Odds Ratio (OR): 1.29, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.23-1.35]. Greater co-morbidity burden was associated with more frequent initial use of imaging, emergency visits, injections, and opioid fills; and less frequent initial use of medical and physical therapy visits. Co-morbid musculoskeletal conditions had the strongest association with being a high utilizer of long-term back-specific resources (OR: 1.53, 95% CI: 1.50-1.57). CONCLUSIONS: Co-morbidity burden and the presence of specific chronic conditions, such as musculoskeletal conditions, were associated with high long-term use of back-related care and care inconsistent with guidelines.

Toward a Framework for Benefit-Risk Assessment in Diagnostic Imaging: Identifying Scenario-specific Criteria.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Diagnostic imaging has many effects and there is no common definition of value in diagnostic radiology. As benefit-risk trade-offs are rarely made explicit, it is not clear which framework is used in clinical guideline development. We describe initial steps toward the creation of a benefit-risk framework for diagnostic radiology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a literature search and an online survey of physicians to identify and collect benefit-risk criteria (BRC) relevant to diagnostic imaging tests. We operationalized a process for selection of BRC with the use of four clinical use case scenarios that vary by diagnostic alternatives and clinical indication. Respondent BRC selections were compared across clinical scenarios and between radiologists and nonradiologists. RESULTS: Thirty-six BRC were identified and organized into three domains: (1) those that account for differences attributable only to the test or device (n = 17); (2) those that account for clinical management and provider experiences (n = 12); and (3) those that capture patient experience (n = 7). Forty-eight survey participants selected 22 criteria from the initial list in the survey (9-11 per case). Engaging ordering physicians increased the number of criteria selected in each of the four clinical scenarios presented. We developed a process for standardizing selection of BRC in guideline development. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that a process relying on elements of comparative effectiveness and the use of standardized BRC may ensure consistent examination of differences among alternatives by way of making explicit implicit trade-offs that otherwise enter the decision-making space and detract from consistency and transparency. These findings also highlight the need for multidisciplinary teams that include input from ordering physicians.

Role of Health Services Research in Producing High-Value Rehabilitation Care.

The concept of value is receiving greater attention in rehabilitation and the broader health care environment. The overall purpose of this article is to present a framework to help clinicians, researchers, educators, and policy makers better understand the role of health services research in developing and evaluating evidence on value in rehabilitation. Value in health care is a multidimensional concept and may be defined differently by various stakeholders, but assessing value typically involves considering a combination of several health and economic outcomes. However, health care stakeholders often lack sufficient information on these outcomes to make well-informed decisions. Health services approaches such as comparative effectiveness research, patient-centered outcomes research, and health economics assessments are some ways to evaluate value. The evidence generated from such studies directly informs decision making and health policy. Rehabilitation professionals have a great opportunity to increase their engagement in describing, evaluating, delivering, and disseminating high-value care, but there are several barriers they need to consider to be most successful. Embracing health services research best practices is essential for advancing appropriate rehabilitation practice, research, and policy and for addressing challenges to implementing high-value care.

Toward Quantifying the Prevalence, Severity, and Cost Associated With Patient Motion During Clinical MR Examinations.

PURPOSE: To assess the prevalence, severity, and cost estimates associated with motion artifacts identified on clinical MR examinations, with a focus on the neuroaxis. METHODS: A retrospective review of 1 randomly selected full calendar week of MR examinations (April 2014) was conducted for the detection of significant motion artifacts in examinations performed at a single institution on 3 different MR scanners. A base-case cost estimate was computed from recently available institutional data, and correlated with sequence time and severity of motion artifacts. RESULTS: A total of 192 completed clinical examinations were reviewed. Significant motion artifacts were identified on sequences in 7.5% of outpatient and 29.4% of inpatient and/or emergency department MR examinations. The prevalence of repeat sequences was 19.8% of total MRI examinations. The base-case cost estimate yielded a potential cost to the hospital of $592 per hour in lost revenue due to motion artifacts. Potential institutional average costs borne (revenue forgone) of approximately $115,000 per scanner per year may affect hospitals, owing to motion artifacts (univariate sensitivity analysis suggested a lower bound of $92,600, and an upper bound of $139,000). CONCLUSIONS: Motion artifacts represent a frequent cause of MR image degradation, particularly for inpatient and emergency department patients, resulting in substantial costs to the radiology department. Greater attention and resources should be directed toward providing practical solutions to this dilemma.

Association of early imaging for back pain with clinical outcomes in older adults.

IMPORTANCE: In contrast to the recommendations for younger adults, many guidelines allow for older adults with back pain to undergo imaging without waiting 4 to 6 weeks. However, early imaging may precipitate interventions that do not improve outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To compare function and pain at the 12-month follow-up visit among older adults who received early imaging with those who did not receive early imaging after a new primary care visit for back pain without radiculopathy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective cohort of 5239 patients 65 years or older with a new primary care visit for back pain (2011-2013) in 3 US health care systems. We matched controls 1:1 using propensity score matching of demographic and clinical characteristics, including diagnosis, pain severity, pain duration, functional status, and prior resource use. EXPOSURES: Diagnostic imaging (plain films, computed tomography [CT], magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) of the lumbar or thoracic spine within 6 weeks of the index visit. PRIMARY OUTCOME: back or leg pain-related disability measured by the modified Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (score range, 0-24; higher scores indicate greater disability) 12 months after enrollment. RESULTS: Among the 5239 patients, 1174 had early radiographs and 349 had early MRI/CT. At 12 months, neither the early radiograph group nor the early MRI/CT group differed significantly from controls on the disability questionnaire. The mean score for patients who underwent early radiography was 8.54 vs 8.74 among the control group (difference, -0.10 [95% CI, -0.71 to 0.50]; mixed model, P = .36). The mean score for the early MRI/CT group was 9.81 vs 10.50 for the control group (difference,-0.51 [-1.62 to 0.60]; mixed model, P = .18). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among older adults with a new primary care visit for back pain, early imaging was not associated with better 1-year outcomes. The value of early diagnostic imaging in older adults for back pain without radiculopathy is uncertain.

How to report a research study.

Incomplete reporting hampers the evaluation of results and bias in clinical research studies. Guidelines for reporting study design and methods have been developed to encourage authors and journals to include the required elements. Recent efforts have been made to standardize the reporting of clinical health research including clinical guidelines. In this article, the reporting of diagnostic test accuracy studies, screening studies, therapeutic studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, cost-effectiveness assessments (CEA), recommendations and/or guidelines, and medical education studies is discussed. The available guidelines, many of which can be found at the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research network, on how to report these different types of health research are also discussed. We also hope that this article can be used in academic programs to educate the faculty and trainees of the available resources to improve our health research.

How to critically appraise the clinical literature.

Recent efforts have been made to standardize the critical appraisal of clinical health care research. In this article, critical appraisal of diagnostic test accuracy studies, screening studies, therapeutic studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, cost-effectiveness studies, recommendations and/or guidelines, and medical education studies is discussed as are the available instruments to appraise the literature. By having standard appraisal instruments, these studies can be appraised more easily for completeness, bias, and applicability for implementation. Appraisal requires a different set of instruments, each designed for the individual type of research. We also hope that this article can be used in academic programs to educate the faculty and trainees of the available resources to improve critical appraisal of health research.

Including patient-reported outcomes and patient-reported resource-use questionnaires in studies.

RATIONALE: More efficient and better informed healthcare systems are expected to have improved knowledge of the impact of interventions on patient outcomes and resources used by patients and providers in specific health conditions. OBJECTIVES: To describe trends related to putting patients at the center of healthcare decision making, regulatory trends and best practice recommendations for developing high-quality patient-reported outcomes (PROs), and strategic issues related to including PROs in studies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We summarize PRO concepts, definitions, and broadly-accepted scientific standards for developing, assessing, and interpreting PROs. Three conceptual models are presented as examples for assessing PROs in relation to other outcomes. We discuss different perspectives for stakeholders, including regulatory issues pertaining to formal guidance for PRO development and for use in trials. We provide examples of PROs used in studies for assessing health outcomes in oncology and resource-use outcomes in low back pain patients. RESULTS: Psychometric scientists working closely with multi-disciplinary teams and regulatory authorities have greatly improved the science of collecting, assessing, and understanding patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials. A simplified framework is presented for strategic considerations for including PROs in studies, such as the appropriate timing for PRO endpoints. Asking patients about their health status and/or use of resources improves our understanding of how interventions and care processes may impact their lives and their budgets. We provide examples from a back pain trial of patient-reported resource-use questionnaires for medicines taken and other services or products used by patients. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare stakeholders are placing increased emphasis on resource use and the impact of interventions on patients, including effects associated with diagnostic tests. Patient-reported outcomes are being used in clinical practice and in clinical research, supported by formal best-practice guidelines. Radiology has a role as an engaged stakeholder in the design, conduct, and interpretation of patient-based evidence, and in its relevance to health policy implementation.

Mapping a patient-reported functional outcome measure to a utility measure for comparative effectiveness and economic evaluations in older adults with low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Linking patient-reported back pain outcomes with health utility measures is valuable for informing economic evaluations. METHODS: We used the Back pain Outcomes using Longitudinal Data (BOLD) registry to assess back pain and quality-of-life measures. The BOLD registry includes participants ≥65 years from 3 health systems. We used multiple baseline outcome measures: Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), Euroqol-5D (EQ-5D), and back and leg pain numerical rating scales (NRS). To develop and validate a model, we used a standard split-sample method and a novel multisite validation approach. We applied linear regression to map RMDQ to EQ-5D, adjusting for age, sex, pain numerical rating scores, and nonlinear transformations of outcome measures. We computed R (2), root mean squared error, and mean absolute error (MAE) for purposes of model selection. The final model included EQ-5D as the dependent variable with independent variables of age, RMDQ, and back NRS. We used this model to predict EQ-5D scores in validation samples. RESULTS: In total, 5224 participants had both baseline RMDQ and EQ-5D. Mean age was 74 years (65% female). Negative correlations (-0.72) were observed at baseline for RMDQ and EQ-5D. The selected model from all developmental samples had R (2) >0.41 and MAE < 0.119. Validation analyses indicated no differences in estimated v. observed mean EQ-5D scores in the split sample. Validation using the multisite validation approach identified prediction error variability, MAE of 0.081 to 0.119, when predicting EQ-5D. LIMITATIONS: The statistical relationship may not generalize well to all study populations as we demonstrated in our multisite analysis. CONCLUSIONS: An empirical algorithm predicting EQ-5D weights from RMDQ scores provides a currently unavailable link for conducting economic evaluations in low back pain studies.

A systematic review to assess comparative effectiveness studies in epidural steroid injections for lumbar spinal stenosis and to estimate reimbursement amounts.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically appraise published comparative effectiveness evidence (clinical and economic) of epidural steroid injections (ESI) for lumbar spinal stenosis and to estimate Medicare reimbursement amounts for ESI procedures. TYPE: Systematic review. LITERATURE SURVEY: PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL were searched through August 2012 for key words that pertain to low back pain, spinal stenosis or sciatica, and epidural steroid injection. We used institutional and Medicare reimbursement amounts for our cost estimation. Articles published in English that assessed ESIs for adults with lumbar spinal stenosis versus a comparison intervention were included. Our search identified 146 unique articles, and 138 were excluded due to noncomparative study design, not having a study population with lumbar spinal stenosis, not having an appropriate outcome, or not being in English. We fully summarized 6 randomized controlled trials and 2 large observational studies. METHODOLOGY: Randomized controlled trial articles were reviewed, and the study population, sample size, treatment groups, ESI dosage, ESI approaches, concomitant interventions, outcomes, and follow-up time were reported. Descriptive resource use estimates for ESIs were calculated with use of data from our institution during 2010 and Medicare-based reimbursement amounts. SYNTHESIS: ESIs or anesthetic injections alone resulted in better short-term improvement in walking distance compared with control injections. However, there were no longer-term differences. No differences between ESIs versus anesthetic in self-reported improvement in pain were reported. Transforaminal approaches had better improvement in pain scores (≤4 months) compared with interlaminar injections. Two observational studies indicated increased rates of lumbar ESI in Medicare beneficiaries. Our sample included 279 patients who received at least 1 ESI during 2010, with an estimated mean total outpatient reimbursement for one ESI procedure "event" to be $637, based on 2010 Medicare reimbursement amounts ($505 technical and $132 professional payments). CONCLUSION: This systematic review of ESI for treating lumbar spinal stenosis found a limited amount of data that suggest that ESI is effective in some patients for improving select short-term outcomes, but results differed depending on study design, outcome measures used, and comparison groups evaluated. Overall, there are relatively few comparative clinical or economic studies for ESI procedures for lumbar spinal stenosis in adults, which indicated a need for additional evidence.