Reported Methods, Distributions, and Frequencies of Torture Globally

Author:

Milewski Andrew1,Weinstein Eliana1,Lurie Jacob1,Lee Annabel2,Taki Faten1,Pilato Tara3,Jedlicka Caroline4,Kaur Gunisha1

Affiliation:

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

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

3. Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

4. Samuel J. Wood Library, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York

Abstract

ImportanceDespite 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.ObjectiveTo rank the commonness of torture methods and identify the regions of the world with which they are associated.Data SourcesFor 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 SelectionIncluded 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 Excluded studies were not peer reviewed, lacked an independent sample population, or did not specify torture methods.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 SynthesisData 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 MeasuresTorture methods were ranked by their average frequencies, numbers of reporting studies, and numbers of countries wherein the methods occurred.ResultsA 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 RelevanceThe 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.

Publisher

American Medical Association (AMA)

Subject

General Medicine

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3