SynthesisTrauma, violence & abuse2026
Instruments to Assess Bidirectional Intimate Partner Violence: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Trauma, violence & abuse, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a significant public health issue that affects individuals, families, and society in profound ways. Over the years, research has often shown that such IPV is predominantly one-sided, with men as perpetrators and women as victims. However, more recent studies have revealed that IPV is frequently bidirectional, with both partners potentially being victims, perpetrators, or both. Despite this growing awareness, little is known about the tools used to assess bidirectional violence (BV). This systematic review aims to synthesize the published scientific literature on the instruments used to assess bidirectional IPV among adult men and women. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a search was conducted across databases such as PubMed, B-on, Web of Science, and Scielo. Fifty studies published between 2012 and 2024 met the inclusion criteria. Most of the studies were conducted with community samples recruited through online questionnaires. The Conflict Tactics Scale emerged as the most used instrument for evaluating BV, demonstrating robust psychometric properties. BV prevalence rates ranged from 2% to 98.4% and remained generally consistent across different instruments, except in the case of male reports. However, the limited number of studies on interpartner agreements and the reliance on single-partner self-reports pose challenges to the accuracy of these estimates. While this systematic review provides a comprehensive overview of the instruments used to assess BV, it underscores the need for future research to develop more precise, context-sensitive tools, that incorporate reports from both partners to improve the accuracy of BV assessment.
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.