ArticleBMC infectious diseases2026
Multicentre insights into OPAT: a comprehensive analysis of Türkiye's unstructured system.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
29 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectiveOutpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) is a well-established, cost-effective treatment modality delivered through structured, multidisciplinary programs worldwide. In Türkiye, no standardized OPAT framework exists; patients continue therapy through emergency departments, primary care facilities, or privately funded nursing services. This is the first multicentre study to evaluate clinical outcomes, treatment adherence, and patient satisfaction with OPAT in Türkiye.
methodsThis prospective multicentre study enrolled adult patients receiving OPAT for chronic osteomyelitis, spondylodiscitis, prosthetic joint infection, or urinary tract infection across 20 hospitals in Türkiye between March and August 2024.
resultsA total of 265 patients were included (53.2% male; mean age 61.4 ± 13.5 years). Gram-positive pathogens predominated (60.2%); the most frequently used antibiotics were teicoplanin (70.5%), ceftriaxone (16.6%), and aminoglycosides (6.8%). The clinical success rate was 94.3%. ADEs led to treatment discontinuation in only 3 patients (1.1%). OPAT initiated at university hospitals was significantly more likely to be continued via emergency departments than at state hospitals (p = 0.010). Treatment-related adverse events occurred significantly more frequently outside dedicated OPAT units (18% vs. 3.1%; p = 0.030). Patient satisfaction was high overall; however, urinary tract infection patients reported significantly greater satisfaction than those with bone and joint infections across multiple domains. Additionally, patients treated in dedicated OPAT units reported significantly higher satisfaction than those treated in emergency departments across all domains assessed.
conclusionThe absence of a structured OPAT system in Türkiye increases emergency department burden and elevates complication risk. Despite this, high clinical success rates and patient satisfaction support OPAT's potential as a viable alternative to inpatient care. A standardized, multidisciplinary OPAT framework is needed to improve patient safety and optimize healthcare resource utilization.
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.