ArticleOpen forum infectious diseases2018
Outpatient Parenteral Therapy for Complicated
Article in Open forum infectious diseases, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multicentre insights into OPAT: a comprehensive analysis of Türkiye's unstructured system.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Clinical Outcomes and Safety Profile of Vancomycin in Outpatient Parenteral Antimicrobial Therapy Services: A Systematic Review.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- 2026 Updated good practice recommendations for outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) in adults and children in the UK.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2026Review
- Inpatient Cost Avoidance and Uncompensated Labor Associated With Different Outpatient Parenteral Antimicrobial Therapy Care Models.Open forum infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Healthcare utilization and outcomes of patients discharged to skilled nursing facilities on parenteral antimicrobial therapy.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2025Article
- Current practices and challenges of outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy: a narrative review.The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2024Review
- Exploring patients' perspectives: a mixed methods study on Outpatient Parenteral Antimicrobial Therapy (OPAT) experiences.BMC health services research · 2024Observational
- Contemporary Management of Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia-Controversies in Clinical Practice.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2023Review
- Conventional Hospitalization versus Sequential Outpatient Parenteral Antibiotic Therapy forAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Redefining Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: A structured approach guiding diagnostic and therapeutic management.The Journal of infection · 2023Review
- Comparison of Sequential Dalbavancin With Standard-of-Care Treatment forOpen forum infectious diseases · 2022Article
- A Quality Initiative to Improve Postdischarge Care for Patients on Outpatient Parenteral Antimicrobial Therapy.Open forum infectious diseases · 2022Article
- Applying the Infectious Diseases Literature to People who Inject Drugs.Infectious disease clinics of North America · 2020Review
- Patient Experiences With Outpatient Parenteral Antibiotic Therapy: Results of a Patient Survey Comparing Skilled Nursing Facilities and Home Infusion.Open forum infectious diseases · 2019Article
- Perspectives of United States-based Infectious Diseases Physicians on Outpatient Parenteral Antimicrobial Therapy Practice.Open forum infectious diseases · 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn the United States, patients discharged on outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) are often treated by home health companies (HHCs) or skilled nursing facilities (SNFs). Little is known about differences in processes and outcomes between these sites of care.
methodsWe performed a retrospective study of 107 patients with complicated
resultsOverall, 33% of patients experienced an adverse event during OPAT, and 64% were readmitted at 90 days. Labs were received for 44% of patients in SNFs and 56% of patients in HHCs. At 90 days after discharge, a higher proportion of patients discharged to an SNF were lost to follow-up (17% vs 3%;
conclusionsPatients discharged to SNFs may be at higher risk for line events than patients discharged to HHCs. Efforts should be made to strengthen basic OPAT processes, such as lab monitoring and clinic follow-up, at both sites of care.
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.