ArticleDer Orthopade2021
[Cost analysis of inpatient versus outpatient intravenous antibiotic treatment for periprosthetic joint infections : A simulation].
Article in Der Orthopade, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of transversus abdominis plane blocks in abdominoplasties on postoperative outcomes.BJS open · 2025Article
- Safety and feasibility of outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy for patients with spinal infection.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Effectiveness of outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) for patients with cranial infection.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- [Periprosthetic joint infections : Latest developments, strategies and treatment algorithms].Der Orthopade · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundParenteral antibiotic administration in the treatment of periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) often requires inpatient settings. This is associated with significant costs to the healthcare system.
objectiveThe costs of inpatient parenteral antibiotic treatment (IPAT) and simulated costs of outpatient parenteral antibiotic treatment (OPAT) were compared in patients with PJI. Evaluations were carried out from the perspectives of cost bearers (insurances) and healthcare providers (hospitals). MATERIAL AND
methodsThe analysis and simulations were performed for all cases with the ICD-10 diagnosis T84 in the treatment year 2015.
resultsThe simulated reduction of 159 bed-days in the 12 patients included in the study resulted in a reduction of the total costs of>18,000 € from the perspective of the health insurance. From the perspective of the hospitals the pure proceeds were improved by >22,000 €. The total costs of OPAT were >57,000 € for the health insurance. For hospitals the difference of policlinic proceeds and costs of OPAT showed a loss of >1500 €.
conclusionFor hospitals the OPAT is overall financially advantageous. Further advantages due to opportunity costs seem to be interesting. For cost bearers OPAT is associated with an additional financial expenditure, particularly due to costs of outpatient medication. The private sector should be considered due to the assumed additional burden as well as the assumed patient comfort.
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.