ArticleInternal and emergency medicine2021
The impact of an outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy (OPAT) clinic for adults with cellulitis: an interrupted time series study.
Article in Internal and emergency medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- 2026 Updated good practice recommendations for outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) in adults and children in the UK.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2026Review
- Evaluate the Effectiveness of Outpatient Parenteral Antimicrobial Therapy (OPAT) Program in Saudi Arabia: A Retrospective Study.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Emergency department (ED) patients with cellulitis requiring intravenous antibiotics may be eligible for outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy (OPAT). The primary objective was to determine whether implementation of an OPAT clinic results in decreased hospitalizations and return ED visits for patients receiving OPAT. We conducted an interrupted time series study involving adults with cellulitis presenting to two EDs and treated with intravenous antibiotics. The intervention was the OPAT clinic, which involved follow up at 48-96 h with an infectious disease physician to determine the need for ongoing intravenous antibiotics (implemented January 1, 2014). The primary outcomes were hospital admission and return ED visits within 14 days. Secondary outcomes were treatment failure (admission after initiating OPAT) and adverse peripheral line or antibiotic events. We used an interrupted time series design with segmented regression analysis over one-year pre-intervention and one-year post-intervention. 1666 patients were included. At the end of the study period, there was a non-significant 12% absolute increase in hospital admissions (95% CI - 1.6 to 25.5%; p = 0.084) relative to what would have been expected in the absence of the intervention, but a significant 40.7% absolute reduction in return ED visits (95% CI 25.6-55.9%; p < 0.001). Treatment failure rates were < 2% and adverse events were < 6% in both groups. Implementation of an OPAT clinic significantly reduced return ED visits for cellulitis, but did not reduce hospital admission rates. An ED-to-OPAT clinic model is safe, and has a low rate of treatment failures.
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.