ArticleInfection2025
Clinical and patient-reported outcomes of self-administered outpatient parenteral antimicrobial treatment (S-OPAT): a scoping review.
Article in Infection, 2025. 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.
- Comparing Self-Administered Outpatient Parenteral Antimicrobial Therapy (S-OPAT) with Alternative Delivery Models: Risk Factors for Treatment Failure and Complications in a UK Cohort.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- 2026 Updated good practice recommendations for outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) in adults and children in the UK.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2026Review
- Comment on: The environmental impact of intravenous antimicrobial therapies: a comparison of OPAT and inpatient administration care pathways.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2025Article
- The Impact of a Structured Outpatient Parenteral Antimicrobial Therapy (OPAT) Programme on Quality of Care, Optimisation of Antimicrobial Use, and Healthcare Costs: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of the existing literature on Self-administered Outpatient Parenteral Antimicrobial Therapy (S-OPAT), focusing on safety and clinical outcomes, factors influencing these outcomes, and the experiences of patients and caregivers.
methodsWe searched the databases MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase and Cochrane library. Publications were included if they reported on the clinical outcomes, safety, and/or experiences of patients and caregivers with S-OPAT. Study selection and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers. Quantitative and qualitative data were summarized in data charting forms.
resultsForty-four studies were included: 41 primary studies, 2 systematic reviews and 1 clinical guideline. Clinical outcomes were reported in 17 and safety in 23 primary studies. Eleven studies compared S-OPAT to other OPAT delivery models. These studies showed that all models were generally comparable regarding clinical outcomes, but two studies reported an increased number of adverse events with S-OPAT. Nine studies, exploring a total of 7 potential risk factors, identified older age, comorbidities and Staphylococcus aureus infections as contributors to adverse events. The results of 14 studies on patient-centred outcomes showed that patients and caregivers considered S-OPAT a suitable alternative to other OPAT delivery models.
conclusionWe conclude that S-OPAT is a viable model of care, demonstrating favourable clinical outcomes, although some safety concerns have been reported. The growing care demand now and in the future urges further development of S-OPAT care. Gaps of knowledge still exist, and we provide recommendations for future research.
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.