Case series / case reportcited by the Tayebat archiveabstract only checked★ key study A-LEG-11 in-depth review
Deaths from food allergy in the US
Fatalities due to anaphylactic reactions to foods.
Overview
Bock SA et al.. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2001 · PMID 11150011 · DOI 10.1067/mai.2001.112031
Most of 32 food-allergy deaths were due to peanuts or tree nuts, nearly all in people already known to be allergic.
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?
Describe fatalities
- How was the study done?
Registry case series
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
32 deaths
- What was actually found?
Peanut/tree nut >90%
- How large was the observed effect?
Not applicable
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Allergic people need avoidance and adrenaline.
- What are the study's limitations?
No denominator
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Supports allergic-only risk
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Moderate
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Cannot show risk for non-allergic people.
Scientific in-depth review
1. Full reference
- Authors
- Bock SA, Muñoz-Furlong A, Sampson HA
- Journal
- J Allergy Clin Immunol
- Year
- 2001
- Identifier
- PMID 11150011 DOI 10.1067/mai.2001.112031
- Verification
- verified – PubMed E-utilities efetch, 2026-10-25
- Retracted
- no
- Corrections
- none
- Extent checked
- abstract only
- Conflicts of interest and funding
not stated in abstract
2. Research question
Characterise fatal food anaphylaxis.
3. Study design and population
- Study design
- Case series / case report – Case series from a national registry
- Population
Fatal cases reported to AAAAI registry
- Country
USA
- Period
Not stated
- Sample size
32 deaths
- Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Cases with adequate data
4. Methods and endpoints
- Exposure / intervention
Allergenic foods
- Comparator
None
- Endpoints
Cause of death, associated factors
- Statistical methods
Descriptive
5. Actual results
- Results
Group 1: peanut 14 (67%), tree nuts 7 (33%); group 2: peanut 6 (55%), tree nuts 3 (27%), milk and fish 1 each; most victims adolescents/young adults; all but 1 known food allergy; most with asthma; most lacked epinephrine.
- Absolute risks
not reported
- Authors' conclusion
Peanuts and tree nuts accounted for >90% of fatalities; education needed.
6. Strengths
- National registry
7. Weaknesses
- Voluntary reporting
- No denominator
8. Risk of bias
- Orienting tool
- none applicable
- Type of assessment
- simplified assessment (abstract only)
- Full formal assessment
- no
- Overall risk of bias
- some concerns
- Rationale
Registry series.
9. Assessment of the statistical interpretation
Proportions among deaths, not risks.
10. Relevance to the specific claim
Supports C-LEG-11.
11. Independent contrary findings
Umasunthar 2013.
12. Transferability to Germany and Europe
Moderate.
13. Overall methodological judgement
Correctly cited.
| Multidimensional assessment | |
|---|---|
| Authenticity of the source | verified |
| Methodological quality | moderate |
| Risk of bias | some concerns |
| Precision of results | low |
| Directness | direct |
| Reproducibility | replicated |
| Consistency with the overall evidence | consistent |
| Regional transferability | moderate |
| Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive) | essentially correct but incomplete |
14. Open questions
Current pattern.
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
Peanut and tree nuts caused >90% of 32 food-anaphylaxis deaths.
- A. What was actually studied?
Fatal anaphylaxis series.
- B. What did the authors find?
As stated; victims were known allergic.
- C. What conclusions do the authors themselves draw?
Education to prevent deaths.
- D. What does the archive derive from it?
Peanut 'leads' fatalities, supporting avoidance.
- E. Is this derivation scientifically justified?
Correct proportion; omits that victims were known allergic and absolute risk is very low.
- Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive)
- essentially correct but incomplete