+1 Recommend
0 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Prevalence of Intimate Partner Violence Among Men Who Have Sex With Men: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis


      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.



          Intimate partner violence (IPV) among men who have sex with men (MSM) has become a serious and widespread public health issue, which might result in low quality of life and increase the global burden of diseases.


          To quantitatively estimate the pooled prevalence of IPV and its specific forms (physical violence, sexual violence and emotional violence) among MSM.


          Databases of PubMed, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CNKI, WANFANG Data, and Weipu (CQVIP) Data were searched for identified studies published between January 1990 and August 2020. Random effect meta-analyses were used to synthesize the pooled prevalence and 95% CIs of IPV.

          Main Outcome Measures

          The pooled prevalence of IPV in victimization and in perpetration among MSM.


          A total of 52 studies with 32,048 participants were included for final analysis. The pooled prevalence of IPV was 33% (6,342 of 19,873; 95%CI, 28–39%) in victimization and 29% (1,491 of 5,983; 95%CI, 17 –40%) in perpetration across all recall periods among MSM population. Furthermore, the pooled prevalence of physical violence was 17% (3,979 of 22,928; 95%CI, 14 –20%) and 12% (942 of 9,236; 95%CI, 10 –15%), of sexual violence was 9% (1,527 of 19,511; 95%CI, 8 –11%) and 4% (324 of 8,044; 95%CI, 3 –5%), of emotional violence was 33% (5,147 of 17,994; 95%CI, 25 –40%) and 41% (1,317 of 3,811; 95%CI, 17 –65%) in victimization and perpetration, respectively. Out of all the IPV identified, emotional violence was estimated at the highest level.


          This study demonstrated a high prevalence of IPV both in victimization and perpetration among MSM, and emotional violence was estimated at the highest level out of all IPV forms. Efforts are needed to develop corresponding prevention programs for victims with an intent to increase the accessible availability of health services, and ultimately improve their life quality.

          Liu M., Cai X., Hao G. et al., Prevalence of Intimate Partner Violence Among Men Who Have Sex With Men: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Sex Med 2021;9:100433 .

          Related collections

          Most cited references79

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses.

              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group.

              Because of the pressure for timely, informed decisions in public health and clinical practice and the explosion of information in the scientific literature, research results must be synthesized. Meta-analyses are increasingly used to address this problem, and they often evaluate observational studies. A workshop was held in Atlanta, Ga, in April 1997, to examine the reporting of meta-analyses of observational studies and to make recommendations to aid authors, reviewers, editors, and readers. Twenty-seven participants were selected by a steering committee, based on expertise in clinical practice, trials, statistics, epidemiology, social sciences, and biomedical editing. Deliberations of the workshop were open to other interested scientists. Funding for this activity was provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. We conducted a systematic review of the published literature on the conduct and reporting of meta-analyses in observational studies using MEDLINE, Educational Research Information Center (ERIC), PsycLIT, and the Current Index to Statistics. We also examined reference lists of the 32 studies retrieved and contacted experts in the field. Participants were assigned to small-group discussions on the subjects of bias, searching and abstracting, heterogeneity, study categorization, and statistical methods. From the material presented at the workshop, the authors developed a checklist summarizing recommendations for reporting meta-analyses of observational studies. The checklist and supporting evidence were circulated to all conference attendees and additional experts. All suggestions for revisions were addressed. The proposed checklist contains specifications for reporting of meta-analyses of observational studies in epidemiology, including background, search strategy, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. Use of the checklist should improve the usefulness of meta-analyses for authors, reviewers, editors, readers, and decision makers. An evaluation plan is suggested and research areas are explored.

                Author and article information

                Sex Med
                Sex Med
                Sexual Medicine
                25 September 2021
                December 2021
                25 September 2021
                : 9
                : 6
                : 100433
                [1 ]Department of Public Health and Preventive Medicine , School of Medicine, Jinan University , Guangzhou , China
                [2 ]International School, Jinan University , Guangzhou , China
                Author notes
                [* ] Corresponding Author: Peng Xiong, PhD, Assistant Professor, Department of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Jinan University, 601 West Huangpu Road, Guangzhou, China 510632. Tel: (020) 85220267; Fax: (020) 85220267 paulxiongwhu@ 123456gmail.com
                S2050-1161(21)00113-6 100433
                Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of the International Society for Sexual Medicine.

                This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

                : 11 June 2021
                : 10 August 2021

                intimate partner violence (ipv),domestic violence,men who have sex with men (msm),meta-analysis


                Comment on this article