Suppr超能文献

全球酷刑的报告方法、分布和频率:系统评价和荟萃分析。

Reported Methods, Distributions, and Frequencies of Torture Globally: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

机构信息

Department of Anesthesiology, NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

Weill Cornell Medicine Medical College, New York, New York.

出版信息

JAMA Netw Open. 2023 Oct 2;6(10):e2336629. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.36629.

Abstract

IMPORTANCE

Despite its prohibition by the United Nations Convention against Torture and other international treaties, torture has been perpetrated against countless individuals worldwide, and health care practitioners globally are increasingly encountering refugee torture survivors in their clinical practices. The methods, geographic distribution, and frequency of torture globally are not well described, which limits health care practitioners' ability to adequately diagnose and treat the sequelae of torture.

OBJECTIVE

To rank the commonness of torture methods and identify the regions of the world with which they are associated.

DATA SOURCES

For this systematic review and meta-analysis, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Web of Science, and The Cochrane Library were searched from inception to July 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

Included studies were peer-reviewed articles in English, contained an independent sample population of individuals who experienced torture, and outlined the type(s) of torture experienced. Excluded studies were not peer reviewed, lacked an independent sample population, or did not specify torture methods. Articles were chosen for inclusion by 2 independent and blinded reviewers, and a third, independent reviewer resolved discrepancies. Overall, 266 articles-15.3% of the 1739 studies initially identified for full review-met the inclusion criteria.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data abstraction and quality assessment followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Data were extracted by 2 independent and blinded reviewers into predefined templates, and a third, independent reviewer resolved discrepancies. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Downs and Black Checklist.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Torture methods were ranked by their average frequencies, numbers of reporting studies, and numbers of countries wherein the methods occurred.

RESULTS

A total of 9937 titles and abstracts were screened, and 266 studies encompassing 103 604 individuals (13 350 men, 5610 women, and 84 644 unspecified) were analyzed. Torture was reported for 105 countries; 21 methods accounted for 84% of all reported methods and 10 methods accounted for 78% of all physical tortures. The top 3 methods were beating or blunt-force trauma (reported in 208 studies and 59 countries; average frequency, 62.4%; 95% CI, 57.7%-67.1%), electrical torture (reported in 114 studies and 28 countries; average frequency, 17.2%; 95% CI, 15.0%-19.4%), and starvation or dehydration (reported in 65 studies in 26 countries; average frequency, 12.7%; 95% CI, 10.2%-15.2%). According to the Downs and Black appraisal tool, 50 studies were rated as good or excellent and 216 as fair or poor.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings of this study suggest that torture remains widespread. Although innumerable torture methods exist, a limited number account for the vast majority of reported tortures. So that targeted therapies may be developed, additional investigation is needed to better elucidate the sequelae associated with the most common torture methods, described here.

摘要

重要性

尽管联合国《禁止酷刑公约》和其他国际条约禁止酷刑,但酷刑仍在全球范围内对数以千计的个人实施,而且全球医疗保健从业者在临床实践中越来越多地遇到难民酷刑幸存者。全球酷刑的方法、地理分布和频率描述得并不完善,这限制了医疗保健从业者充分诊断和治疗酷刑后果的能力。

目的

对酷刑方法的常见程度进行排名,并确定与它们相关的世界区域。

数据来源

本系统评价和荟萃分析检索了 Ovid MEDLINE、Ovid Embase、Web of Science 和 The Cochrane Library,从创建到 2021 年 7 月。

研究选择

纳入研究为同行评议的英文文章,包含经历过酷刑的独立样本人群,并概述了所经历的酷刑类型。排除的研究未经同行评审、缺乏独立样本人群或未具体说明酷刑方法。文章由 2 位独立且盲目的评审员选择纳入,并由第三位独立评审员解决分歧。总的来说,在最初进行全面审查的 1739 项研究中,有 266 项研究符合纳入标准(占 15.3%)。

数据提取和综合

数据提取和质量评估遵循系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目准则。数据由 2 位独立且盲目的评审员提取到预定义模板中,第三位独立评审员解决分歧。使用唐斯和布莱克清单评估偏倚风险。

主要结果和措施

根据平均频率、报告研究数量和发生方法的国家数量对酷刑方法进行排名。

结果

共筛选了 9937 篇标题和摘要,分析了 266 项研究,共涉及 103604 人(13350 名男性、5610 名女性和 84644 名未指定性别)。有 105 个国家报告了酷刑;21 种方法占所有报告方法的 84%,10 种方法占所有身体酷刑的 78%。排名前 3 位的方法是殴打或钝器创伤(在 208 项研究和 59 个国家中报告;平均频率为 62.4%;95%CI,57.7%-67.1%)、电刑(在 114 项研究和 28 个国家中报告;平均频率为 17.2%;95%CI,15.0%-19.4%)和饥饿或脱水(在 26 个国家的 65 项研究中报告;平均频率为 12.7%;95%CI,10.2%-15.2%)。根据唐斯和布莱克评估工具,50 项研究被评为良好或优秀,216 项研究被评为良好或较差。

结论和相关性

本研究结果表明,酷刑仍然普遍存在。尽管存在无数种酷刑方法,但少数几种方法占绝大多数报告的酷刑。因此,为了开发有针对性的治疗方法,需要进一步调查,以更好地阐明这里描述的最常见酷刑方法所带来的后果。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ef16/10548313/2385c87af760/jamanetwopen-e2336629-g001.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验