Materials and Methods

This narrative review with systematic literature search was conducted according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) standards. A methodological assessment of each study was carried out following PRISMA guidelines, including an evaluation of bias. The PRISMA 2020 statement was applied, which consists of a checklist and a flow diagram (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1: The selection of papers following PRISMA protocol

A narrative review with systematic literature search of the English-language literature on femicide and its forensic implications was conducted, followed by a critical review of the collected studies. The databases consulted included PubMed (178), Science Direct (970), Google Scholar (1100), and Scopus (92) from database inception to November 2024, using the following search terms:

(“Femicide” OR “intimate partner femicide” OR “IPF” OR “intimate partner homicide”) AND (“autopsy” OR “postmortem” OR “forensic” OR “post-mortem”).

For this review, the selection was limited to English-language studies to maintain methodological consistency and facilitate comparison between sources, given the greater availability of studies in this language within major scientific databases.

From this research, a dataset of abstracts was compiled, downloaded as a .nbib file, and uploaded into Zotero 6-0.30, used as a reference manager. The research group, following a dedicated meeting, established the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the selection of studies, in accordance with PRISMA standards [7].

Inclusion criteria were as follows:

Fully available publications in English;Retrospective studies conducted on IPF victims subjected to autopsy examinations;Retrospective studies focusing on the forensic psychiatric aspects of IPF perpetrators;Demographic characteristics of the victims;Demographic characteristics of the perpetrators;Context of the homicide;Victim-perpetrator relationship;Perpetrators’ psychiatric history;Motive for the homicide;Geographical location of the event.

This study provides a valuable overview of common and divergent patterns found in femicide perpetrators worldwide. Due to substantial methodological heterogeneity and the descriptive nature of most studies, no formal quality assessment tool or meta-analysis was performed; study quality was evaluated narratively.

A large proportion of the initially identified records was excluded during the screening and eligibility phases, as shown in Fig. 1. In particular, most records were excluded during the title and abstract screening as they did not specifically address intimate partner femicide or lacked forensic, autopsy, or criminological data relevant to the aims of the review. At the full-text stage, further exclusions were applied based on the predefined inclusion criteria, particularly regarding the study design, availability of detailed victim–perpetrator relationship data, and the presence of psychiatric or forensic variables. Additional exclusions concerned non-English publications and limited accessibility of full-text articles. The final selection includes 16 studies providing sufficiently detailed and comparable data for the purposes of this analysis.