FIGURE 2—

Forest Plot Comparing Prevalence of Physical Intimate Partner Violence Victimization Between Transgender and Cisgender Participants Across 21 Studies That Included Transgender and Cisgender Participants

Note. CI = confidence interval; IPV = intimate partner violence; RR = risk ratio. Whitton et al.⁶¹ provided transgender prevalence data, but not cisgender prevalence data, upon request. Cisgender prevalence is estimated by applying their reported adjusted odds ratio of 2.46 (95% CI = 1.24, 4.92). Reuter et al.⁸⁸ reported comparison data, but it is not included because it was published in an earlier report with a smaller sample size from the same data set as Whitton et al.⁶¹ Whitfield et al.⁸³ and Griner et al.⁹³ used data from the same study; only Griner et al.⁹³ was included in the meta-analysis. Woulfe et al.¹⁷ included past-year and adult IPV. The estimates for adult IPV were included because they had the greatest number of events for estimate stability. Johns et al.⁸² and Zalla et al.³⁶ provided unweighted prevalence data; the raw number/total number is reported here and differs from weighted prevalence percentage reported in the original articles.