Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37358974›Full record

ReviewJournal of family violence2023

A Systematic Literature Review of the Use of Computational Text Analysis Methods in Intimate Partner Violence Research.

Lilly Neubauer, Isabel Straw, Enrico Mariconti, Leonie Maria Tanczer

Full text readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of family violence, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Public Perspectives of Oral and Maxillofacial Injuries Related to Domestic Abuse Experiences and Help-Seeking Barriers: Web Scraping of Reddit Posts.Dental traumatology : official publication of International Association for Dental Traumatology · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
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.

Lilly NeubauerUniversity College London, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8670-5938
Isabel StrawUniversity College London, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT UK.
Enrico MaricontiUniversity College London, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT UK.
Leonie Maria TanczerUniversity College London, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Computational text mining methods are proposed as a useful methodological innovation in Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) research. Text mining can offer researchers access to existing or new datasets, sourced from social media or from IPV-related organisations, that would be too large to analyse manually. This article aims to give an overview of current work applying text mining methodologies in the study of IPV, as a starting point for researchers wanting to use such methods in their own work. Methods: This article reports the results of a systematic review of academic research using computational text mining to research IPV. A review protocol was developed according to PRISMA guidelines, and a literature search of 8 databases was conducted, identifying 22 unique studies that were included in the review. Results: The included studies cover a wide range of methodologies and outcomes. Supervised and unsupervised approaches are represented, including rule-based classification ( Conclusions: Text mining methodologies offer promising data collection and analysis techniques for IPV research. Future work in this space must consider ethical implications of computational approaches.

Indexed as

Domestic ViolenceIntimate Partner ViolenceMachine LearningNatural Language ProcessingSystematic ReviewText AnalysisText Mining

Identifiers

PMID37358974
PMCPMC10028783

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read14
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.