Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31417928›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of clinical cases2019

Cost-analysis of inpatient and outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy in orthopaedics: A systematic literature review.

Christoph Kolja Boese, Philipp Lechler, Michael Frink, Michael Hackl, Peer Eysel, Christian Ries

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of clinical cases, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Hospital at Home vs conventional hospitalization: good clinical outcomes with lower cost and nosocomial complications.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2026
    Observational
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Christoph Kolja BoeseDepartment of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne 50931, Germany. christoph.boese@uk-koeln.de.
Philipp LechlerClinic for Trauma and Hand Surgery, Kreiskliniken, Altötting 84503, Germany.
Michael FrinkCenter for Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, University Hospital Giessen and Marburg, Marburg 35043, Germany.
Michael HacklDepartment of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne 50931, Germany.
Peer EyselDepartment of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne 50931, Germany.
Christian RiesDepartment of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne 50931, Germany.
University Hospital Cologne · DEKreisklinik Trostberg · DEUniversitätsklinikum Gießen und Marburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIncreasing numbers of total joint arthroplasties and consecutive revision surgery are associated with the risk of periprosthetic joint infections (PPJI). Treatment of PPJI is complex and associated with immense socio-economic burden. One treatment aspect is parenteral antiinfective therapy, which usually requires an inpatient setting [Inpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy (IPAT)]. An alternative is outpatient parenteral treatment [Outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy (OPAT)]. To conduct a health economic cost-benefit analysis of OPAT, a detailed cost analysis of IPAT and OPAT is required. So far, there is a lack of knowledge on the health economic effects of IPAT and OPAT for PPJI.

aimTo review an economic comparison of IPAT and OPAT.

methodsA systematic literature review was performed through Medline following the PRISMA guidelines.

resultsOf 619 identified studies, 174 included information of interest and 21 studies were included for quantitative analysis of OPAT and IPAT costs. Except for one study, all showed relevant cost savings for OPAT compared to IPAT. Costs for IPAT were between 1.10 to 17.34 times higher than those for OPAT.

conclusionThere are only few reports on OPAT for PPJI. Detailed analyses to support economic or clinical guidelines are therefore limited. There is good clinical evidence supporting economic benefits of OPAT, but more high quality studies are needed for PPJI.

Indexed as

Antibiotic therapyCost analysisInpatient parenteral antibiotic therapyOutpatient parenteral antibiotic therapyParenteralPeriprosthetic joint infection

Identifiers

PMID31417928
PMCPMC6692268
OpenAlexW2965365590

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.