ArticleRevista da Escola de Enfermagem da U S P2026
Methodologies for population surveys on violence in rural areas: a scoping review.
Article in Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da U S P, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objetiveTo examine the methods used in population surveys concerning the epidemiology of violence against people living in rural areas.
methodScoping review, conducted using the JBI method and reported according to PRISMA-ScR. The protocol was registered with OSF in August 2022 (DOI https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/WG6PU). The searches took place from July to September 2022, with an update on April 27, 2025, through keywords and controlled terms mapping, guided by the acronym Population, Concept and Context. The data sources included MEDLINE, Web of Science, LILACS, Scopus, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, grey literature, and unpublished studies. Two independent reviewers selected the studies.
resultsOne hundred and ten studies were included: 89.09% (n = 98) with a cross-sectional design; 46.36% (n = 51) with adults; and 56.36% (n = 62) with women. In 37.27% (n = 41) of the studies, the sampling technique was not described; 59.09% (n = 65) used questionnaires; and 69.09% (n = 76) performed descriptive and inferential statistical analysis.
conclusionHeterogeneity was observed regarding the instruments, sampling, and methodological designs of the surveys.
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.