ArticlePloS one2017
Femicide in Turkey between 2000 and 2010.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 68 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intimate partner femicide, understanding perpetrator behaviour: a cross-cultural analytical review of weapon choice, injury patterns, and cultural-criminological insights.International journal of legal medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Leaking in Intimate Partner Homicide: A Systematic Review.Trauma, violence & abuse · 2024Pooled it
- A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review: Infidelity, Romantic Jealousy and Intimate Partner Violence against Women.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Pooled it
- Patterns of femicide: a 17-year comparative forensic analysis of intimate and non-intimate partner cases.Forensic science, medicine, and pathology · 2026Article
- Heterosexual Intimate Partner Femicide: A Narrative Review of Victim and Perpetrator Characteristics.Brain sciences · 2025Review
- Retrospective analysis of online news on femicide in Türkiye (2018-2022).Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da U S P · 2025Article
- Unveiling the determinants of femicide in Ecuador: a comprehensive analysis.Frontiers in sociology · 2024Article
- The epidemiological and medico-legal characteristics of violent deaths and spousal homicides through a population of women autopsied within the Forensic Medicine Department of the University Hospital of Annaba.BMC women's health · 2023Article
- Gender-related and non-gender-related female homicide in Porto Alegre, Brazil, from 2010 to 2016.PloS one · 2023Article
- Profiling Players Involved in Overkill: An Analysis of 71 Cases in Central Italy.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Femicide Fatal Risk Factors: A Last Decade Comparison between Italian Victims of Femicide by Age Groups.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- The medicolegal, psycho-criminological, and epidemiological reality of intimate partner and non-intimate partner femicide in North-West Italy: looking backwards to see forwards.International journal of legal medicine · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although intimate partner violence (IPV) is an important problem that threatens women's health, very few studies focus on the victim-perpetrator relationship or examine this relationship across Turkey. The aim of this study is to contribute to a better understanding of femicide cases in Turkey and to describe the socio-demographic, clinical, forensic, and criminological characteristics of femicide victims and offenders. This study analysed 162 femicide cases that occurred in 12 cities in Turkey from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2010. Eighty women were killed by their partners (classified as intimate partner femicide, IPF), and 81 women were killed by one of their relatives, friends, or strangers (classified as non-intimate partner femicide, non-IPF). According to our results, the typical IPF victim is of child-bearing age, does not have a paid job, is married or divorced, is killed in a domestic setting due to injuries to the thorax or abdomen produced by an edged/pointed weapon or firearm, and is possibly a victim of overkill. The typical IPF perpetrator is close to his victim's age, has a paid job, has no mental disability, owns a gun, and has threatened his partner or ex-partner previously because of jealousy/infidelity/honour or separation. The typical non-IPF victim is very similar to the IPF victim; however, her marital status can be single, married or divorced, and she is commonly killed by a relative. The surveillance and screening of femicide and IPV is an important step when analysing and attempting to prevent femicide. Second, the training and sensitization of health professionals are important. Moreover, health staff should be encouraged to participate in advocacy interventions. Third, gun ownership must be brought under control.
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.