Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30058516›Full record

SynthesisThe British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science2018

Risk factors for interpersonal violence: an umbrella review of meta-analyses.

Seena Fazel, E Naomi Smith, Zheng Chang, John Richard Geddes

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
9.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

49 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 177 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Aberrant deaths: a conundrum in domestic homicide reviews.Psychiatry, psychology, and law : an interdisciplinary journal of the Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

4 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Seena FazelProfessor of Forensic Psychiatry,Department of Psychiatry,University of Oxford,UK.
E Naomi SmithRegistrar in General and Older Adult Psychiatry,Department of Psychiatry,University of Oxford,UK.
Zheng ChangAssistant Professor,Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics,Karolinska Institutet,Sweden.
John Richard GeddesProfessor of Epidemiological Psychiatry,Department of Psychiatry,University of Oxford and Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust,UK.
Karolinska Institutet · SEOxford Health NHS Foundation Trust · GBScience Oxford · GBUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust 202836/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInterpersonal violence is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. The strength and population effect of modifiable risk factors for interpersonal violence, and the quality of the research evidence is not known.AimsWe aimed to examine the strength and population effect of modifiable risk factors for interpersonal violence, and the quality and reproducibility of the research evidence.

methodWe conducted an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of risk factors for interpersonal violence. A systematic search was conducted to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses in general population samples. Effect sizes were extracted, converted into odds ratios and synthesised, and population attributable risk fractions (PAF) were calculated. Quality analyses were performed, including of small study effects, adjustment for confounders and heterogeneity. Secondary analyses for aggression, intimate partner violence and homicide were conducted, and systematic reviews (without meta-analyses) were summarised.

resultsWe identified 22 meta-analyses reporting on risk factors for interpersonal violence. Neuropsychiatric disorders were among the strongest in relative and absolute terms. The neuropsychiatric risk factor that had the largest effect at a population level were substance use disorders, with a PAF of 14.8% (95% CI 9.0-21.6%), and the most important historical factor was witnessing or being a victim of violence in childhood (PAF = 12.2%, 95% CI 6.5-17.4%). There was evidence of small study effects and large heterogeneity.

conclusionsNational strategies for the prevention of interpersonal violence may need to review policies concerning the identification and treatment of modifiable risk factors.Declarations of interestJ.R.G. is an NIHR Senior Investigator. The views expressed within this article are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.

Indexed as

Interpersonal RelationsAdult Survivors of Child AbuseAggressionHomicideHumansIntimate Partner ViolenceRisk AssessmentRisk Factorsaggressionmeta-analysisrisk factorViolence

Identifiers

PMID30058516
PMCPMC6157722
OpenAlexW2886449033

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.