Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40201538›Full record

ReviewJAC-antimicrobial resistance2025

Quantifying cost savings from outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy programme: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Solomon Ahmed Mohammed, Jason A Roberts, Manuel Mirón-Rubio, Luis Eduardo López Cortés, Getnet Mengistu Assefa, James Pollard, Kate McCarthy, Mark Gilchrist, Menino Cotta, Fekade B Sime

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JAC-antimicrobial resistance, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

10 authors.

Solomon Ahmed MohammedUQ Centre for Clinical Research, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Jason A RobertsUQ Centre for Clinical Research, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Manuel Mirón-RubioHospital Universitario de Torrejón, Unidad de Hospitalización a Domicilio, Madrid, Spain.
Luis Eduardo López CortésUnidad Clínica de Enfermedades Infecciosas y Microbiología, Instituto de Biomedicina de Sevilla (IBiS)/CSIC, Seville, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9347-527X
Getnet Mengistu AssefaUQ Centre for Clinical Research, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
James PollardCabrini @ Home, Cabrini Health, Melbourne, Australia.
Kate McCarthyRoyal Brisbane Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6173-9659
Mark GilchristDepartment of Pharmacy/Infection, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-0625-3535
Menino CottaUQ Centre for Clinical Research, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Fekade B SimeUQ Centre for Clinical Research, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4061-2063

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) programme was introduced to reduce costs and enhance the quality of life for patients requiring prolonged treatment with parenteral antimicrobials. However, given the escalating inflation, the extent of current cost savings achieved through OPAT programmes remains unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis employ a cost-minimization analysis to quantify the cost savings from OPAT compared to inpatient treatment. Methods: The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched for studies comparing the costs of parenteral antimicrobial treatment without restriction on study design and year. Two reviewers conducted eligibility screening and cross-validated the extracted data. The cost data were adjusted and inflated to 2023 US dollars. A random effect model calculated mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The review protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42024584201). Results: Twenty studies involving 2790 patients were included in the systematic review, and six studies (three randomized controlled trials and three cohorts) were subject to metanalysis. Collectively, these included 560 patients who received treatment in outpatient settings, and 491 treated as inpatients. The cost of parenteral antimicrobial per episode of care was lower in the outpatient settings MD -$5436.73 (95% CI: -$9589.24 to -$1284.22, I² = 96%; Conclusions: OPAT significantly saves costs compared to inpatient treatment. We recommend comprehensive analysis of treatment costs from all perspectives, including various cost types.

Identifiers

PMID40201538
PMCPMC11976721

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.