ArticleBMC public health2021
"Validation of a cyberbullying questionnaire as a screening tool for other forms of intimate-partner violence towards young women".
Article in BMC public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Translation and validation of the Hebrew HITS screening tool for Intimate Partner Violence (IPV).BMC public health · 2026Article
- Cyber-intimate partner violence (C-IPV) and its risk factors among women in Malaysia.PloS one · 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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe use of electronic media is widespread among young people and is a potential tool for the perpetration of intimate-partner violence (IPV) towards women. The aim of this study is to validate two questions focused on harassment and control by electronic tools (HCE-2) as a screening tool for the detection of IPV in young women.
methodsThe data source was the third Community of Madrid IPV survey in 2014. The screening tool consisted of two questions with five possible answers prepared by a group of experts. As the gold standard we used the definition of intimate partner violence based on a 26- question survey. The validity indices (with 95% confidence intervals) were compared between two age groups: 18-24 and 25-29 years.
resultsSix hundred ninty-four women were sampled. The response rate was 68.7%, and 477 surveys were analyzed. The prevalence of IPV was 10.7% (95% CI: 8.2-13.8). HCE-2 was positive in 5.9% (95% CI: 4.1-8.4). The overall efficiency of the test was 93.5% (95% CI: 91.1-96.7), sensitivity 47.1% (95% CI: 33.7-60.8), specificity 99.1% (95% CI: 97.5-99.6), and positive predictive value 85.7% (95% CI: 67.1-94.6). The best validity indices of the questionnaire were observed in women aged 18 to 24 years: overall efficiency of the test 95.1% (95% CI: 92.6-97.7), sensitivity 62.5% (95% CI: 44.5-77.6), specificity 99.6% (95% CI: 97.0-99.9), and positive predictive value 95.2% (95% CI: 71.7-99.4).
conclusionsThe existing need to improve the detection of IPV in young women and the good validity indices observed here justify the recommendation of the HCE-2 questionnaire as a screening tool in young women.
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.