Case series / case reportcited by the Tayebat archiveabstract only checked A-LEG-12 standard review
Further US food-allergy deaths
Further fatalities caused by anaphylactic reactions to food, 2001-2006.
Overview
Bock SA et al.. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2007 · PMID 17306354 · DOI 10.1016/j.jaci.2006.12.622
Registry letter; content not available to us.
Does the study support the specific claim? Unclear · Methodological quality: low
Plain-language summary
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Update registry
- How was the study done?
Letter
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
Not available
- What was actually found?
Not verified
- How large was the observed effect?
Not applicable
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Not applicable
- What are the study's limitations?
Not read
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Unclear
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Moderate
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Cannot be assessed.
Scientific in-depth review
1. Full reference
- Authors
- Bock SA, Muñoz-Furlong A, Sampson HA
- Journal
- J Allergy Clin Immunol
- Year
- 2007
- Identifier
- PMID 17306354 DOI 10.1016/j.jaci.2006.12.622
- 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
Update of fatal food anaphylaxis registry.
3. Study design and population
- Study design
- Case series / case report – Letter reporting registry cases
- Population
US registry
- Country
USA
- Period
2001-2006
- Sample size
Not available (no abstract)
- Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Not available
4. Methods and endpoints
- Exposure / intervention
Food allergens
- Comparator
None
- Endpoints
Deaths
- Statistical methods
Descriptive
5. Actual results
- Results
No abstract in PubMed; not read.
- Absolute risks
not reported
- Authors' conclusion
Not available.
6. Strengths
- Registry update
7. Weaknesses
- No abstract; content not verified
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
Letter.
9. Assessment of the statistical interpretation
Not applicable.
10. Relevance to the specific claim
Supporting context for C-LEG-11.
11. Independent contrary findings
Umasunthar 2013.
12. Transferability to Germany and Europe
Moderate.
13. Overall methodological judgement
Content not read.
| Multidimensional assessment | |
|---|---|
| Authenticity of the source | verified |
| Methodological quality | low |
| Risk of bias | not assessable |
| Precision of results | not applicable |
| Directness | direct |
| Reproducibility | replicated |
| Consistency with the overall evidence | consistent |
| Regional transferability | moderate |
| Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive) | not verifiable |
14. Open questions
Full text.
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
Bibliography only.
- A. What was actually studied?
Registry update.
- B. What did the authors find?
Not verifiable.
- C. What conclusions do the authors themselves draw?
Not verifiable.
- D. What does the archive derive from it?
Supports peanut fatality argument.
- E. Is this derivation scientifically justified?
Not verifiable from abstract.
- Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive)
- not verifiable