2.

Face‐to‐face screening compared with written/computer‐based screening for IPV
Patient or population: women attending healthcare settings for any health‐related reason Settings: healthcare Intervention: face‐to‐face screening for IPV Comparison: written/computer‐based screening
Outcomes	Face‐to‐face screening for IPV	Written/computer‐based screening	Effect		Number of participants (studies)	Quality of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
			Relative effect (95% CI)	Absolute effect (95% CI)
Identification of IPV (non‐clinically based, assessed immediately)	139/806 (17.2%)	247/1959 (12.6%)	OR 1.12 (0.53 to 2.36)	13 more per 1000 (from 55 fewer to 128 more)	2765 (4)	⊕⊕⊕⊝ Moderate1
		24.8%		22 more per 1000 (from 99 fewer to 190 more)
CI: Confidence interval; GRADE: Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation; IPV: intimate partner violence; OR: odds ratio.
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

¹Downgraded due to heterogeneity.