Title: Global prevalence of intimate partner violence during the COVID-19 pandemic among
women: Systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 1 Date: 30 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editors,
I would like to express my gratitude for the kind invitation. I appreciate the chance to participate
in the review process for the manuscript titled "Prevalence of Intimate Partner Violence among
Women during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis." This
manuscript addresses a crucial, engaging, and often overlooked subject – highlighting the
repercussions of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Language, Punctuation, and Grammar:
Throughout the document, multiple instances of language, punctuation, and grammatical errors
need to be corrected. It is essential to thoroughly review and rectify these issues to enhance the
overall clarity and professionalism of the manuscript.
Writing Style and Depth:
The writing style employed in this study appears somewhat shallow. To improve the quality of
the manuscript, consider delving deeper into the subject matter, providing more comprehensive
insights, and utilizing a more engaging and sophisticated writing approach. This will contribute
to a more impactful and informative presentation of the research findings.
Title: The significance of the systematic review and meta-analysis in public health is underscored
by its focus on women. Nevertheless, "Prevalence of Intimate Partner Violence among Women
during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" does not provide
insight into the study's specific setting. Could you modify the title?
Abstract: Within the abstract, the authors noted that notwithstanding this fact, there exists a lack
of consistent findings and comprehensive data regarding intimate partner violence during the
COVID-19 pandemic. Does this systematic review aim to attain representative data?
In the abstract section, All English-language studies conducted from December 31, 2019, to
May 15/2022, were extracted from databases such as PubMed/Medline, CINAHL, and Google
Scholar is confusing and unclear. Please rewrite this sentence.
In the eligibility criteria section, The presentation of the criteria requires adjustment. It is
outlined briefly using bullet points and a format reminiscent of a PowerPoint slide. However,
this approach lacks coherence and clarity. I recommend reorganizing the content into a well-
structured paragraph with descriptive explanations to enhance the understanding of the eligibility
criteria. This will provide a more comprehensive and coherent representation of the criteria for
the reader.
In the pooled prevalence section, the authors mentioned that the lowest prevalence of intimate
partner violence (IPV), recorded at 7.1%, was reported at St. Paul's Hospital in Ethiopia (46).
Conversely, the highest IPV prevalence, at 74%, was documented in the USA (52).
However, an intriguing inconsistency arises in the subgroup analysis. Specifically, the
breakdown by region unveils a different pattern. According to this subgroup analysis, the
prevalence of IPV is markedly higher in developing regions, reaching 33% (with a 95% CI of
23.0 to 43.0), as opposed to the prevalence in developed regions, which stands at 14% (with
a 95% CI of 11.0 to 17.0). This contrast prompts the need for clarification. Could you kindly
explain this notable disparity?