ArticleThe Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy2017
Cost-effectiveness of outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy: a simulation modelling approach.
Article in The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparing Self-Administered Outpatient Parenteral Antimicrobial Therapy (S-OPAT) with Alternative Delivery Models: Risk Factors for Treatment Failure and Complications in a UK Cohort.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Cost savings of outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy using a digital infusion pump.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2026Article
- Outpatient Parenteral Antimicrobial Therapy (OPAT) in Italy: A Scoping Review.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2026Review
- 2026 Updated good practice recommendations for outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) in adults and children in the UK.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2026Review
- Continuous infusion OPAT via elastomeric pumps: effectiveness, safety, and cost-saving potential in a real-world Italian cohort.Infection · 2026Article
- Delivery of Outpatient Parenteral Antimicrobial Therapy (OPAT) in an Ever-Changing National Health Service (UK): Benefits, Barriers, and Opportunities.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Peripherally inserted central venous catheter in outpatient antibiotic spinal infection treatment is safe, effective and leads to significant reduction in healthcare expenses.Neurosurgical review · 2024Article
- Ampicillin Stability in a Portable Elastomeric Infusion Pump: A Step Forward in Outpatient Parenteral Antimicrobial Therapy.Pharmaceutics · 2023Article
- A single centre experience of prosthetic joint infection outcomes with outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy.Heliyon · 2023Article
- Article
- Intravenous catheter-related adverse events exceed drug-related adverse events in outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy.The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objectives: In the UK, patients who require intravenous antimicrobial (IVA) treatment may receive this in the community through outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) services. Services include: IVA administration at a hospital outpatient clinic (HO); IVA administration at home by a general nurse (GN) or a specialist nurse (SN); or patient self-administered (SA) IVA administration following training. There is uncertainty regarding which OPAT services represent value for money; this study aimed to estimate their cost-effectiveness. Methods: A cost-effectiveness decision-analytic model was developed using a simulation technique utilizing data from hospital records and a systematic review of the literature. The model estimates cost per QALY gained from the National Health Service (NHS) perspective for short- and long-term treatment of infections and service combinations across these. Results: In short-term treatments, HO was estimated as the most effective (0.7239 QALYs), but at the highest cost (£973). SN was the least costly (£710), producing 0.7228 QALYs. The combination between SN and HO was estimated to produce 0.7235 QALYs at a cost of £841. For long-term treatments, SN was the most effective (0.677 QALYs), costing £2379, while SA was the least costly at £1883, producing 0.666 QALYs. A combination of SA and SN was estimated to produce 0.672 QALYs at a cost of £2128. Conclusions: SN and SA are cost-effective for short- and long-term treatment of infections, while combining services may represent the second-best alternative for OPAT in the UK.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.