Narrative reviewcited by the Tayebat archiveabstract only checked A-LEG-01 standard review
NEJM review on favism
Favism and Glucose-6-Phosphate Dehydrogenase Deficiency.
Overview
Luzzatto L, Arese P. N Engl J Med 2018 · PMID 29298156 · DOI 10.1056/nejmra1708111
Authoritative review of favism; no abstract available to us.
Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: moderate
Plain-language summary
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Review favism
- How was the study done?
Narrative review
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
Not applicable
- What was actually found?
Not verified
- How large was the observed effect?
Not applicable
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Favism is a recognised condition.
- What are the study's limitations?
Content not read.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Supports favism existence only.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Cannot justify avoidance for non-deficient people.
Scientific in-depth review
1. Full reference
- Authors
- Luzzatto L, Arese P
- Journal
- N Engl J Med
- Year
- 2018
- Identifier
- PMID 29298156 DOI 10.1056/nejmra1708111
- Verification
- verified – PubMed E-utilities efetch, 2026-10-25
- Retracted
- no
- Corrections
- none
- Extent checked
- abstract only
- Conflicts of interest and funding
not stated (no abstract)
2. Research question
Mechanisms and clinical features of favism in G6PD deficiency.
3. Study design and population
- Study design
- Narrative review – Narrative review article (NEJM Review Article)
- Population
Not applicable (review)
- Country
Not applicable
- Period
Not applicable
- Sample size
Not applicable
- Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Not reported (no abstract)
4. Methods and endpoints
- Exposure / intervention
Fava bean ingestion in G6PD deficiency
- Comparator
Not applicable
- Endpoints
Not applicable
- Statistical methods
Not applicable
5. Actual results
- Results
No abstract in PubMed; content not read.
- Absolute risks
not reported
- Authors' conclusion
Not available (no abstract).
6. Strengths
- Authoritative authors and journal
7. Weaknesses
- No abstract available; content not verified by us
8. Risk of bias
- Orienting tool
- none applicable
- Type of assessment
- simplified assessment (abstract only)
- Full formal assessment
- no
- Overall risk of bias
- not assessable
- Rationale
Narrative review; full text not accessed.
9. Assessment of the statistical interpretation
Not applicable.
10. Relevance to the specific claim
Supports the existence of favism (C-LEG-03).
11. Independent contrary findings
None on the core point.
12. Transferability to Germany and Europe
High.
13. Overall methodological judgement
Reputable review; supports favism as an entity; content not read.
| Multidimensional assessment | |
|---|---|
| Authenticity of the source | verified |
| Methodological quality | moderate |
| Risk of bias | not assessable |
| Precision of results | not applicable |
| Directness | direct |
| Reproducibility | replicated |
| Consistency with the overall evidence | consistent |
| Regional transferability | high |
| Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive) | not verifiable |
14. Open questions
Full text not accessed.
15. Linked fact checks
Use by the Tayebat archive
Note: according to the archive, the studies were compiled by the archive operators. Whether Dr. Elawady himself cited this study is not established.
- What the archive says about the study
Listed in the bibliography as background on favism.
- A. What was actually studied?
Review of favism.
- B. What did the authors find?
Not verifiable from PubMed record (no abstract).
- C. What conclusions do the authors themselves draw?
Not verifiable.
- D. What does the archive derive from it?
Used as general support for favism risk.
- E. Is this derivation scientifically justified?
Justified only for favism in G6PD-deficient people, not for universal legume avoidance.
- Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive)
- not verifiable