Cohort studyindependent cross-checkabstract only checked I-FSH-04 standard review
Fish in pregnancy and child development
Maternal seafood consumption in pregnancy and neurodevelopmental outcomes in childhood (ALSPAC study): an observational cohort study.
Overview
Hibbeln JR et al.. Lancet 2007 · PMID 17307104 · DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60277-3
Children of mothers who ate more seafood in pregnancy had better developmental scores.
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?
Link seafood to development.
- How was the study done?
Cohort.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
11,875.
- What was actually found?
Better outcomes with >340 g/week.
- How large was the observed effect?
OR 1.48 for no seafood.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Fish in pregnancy helpful; choose low-mercury species.
- What are the study's limitations?
Observational.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Supports fish intake in general.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Species-level safety.
Scientific in-depth review
1. Full reference
- Authors
- Hibbeln JR et al.
- Journal
- Lancet
- Year
- 2007
- Identifier
- PMID 17307104 DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60277-3
- Verification
- verified – PubMed efetch 2026-10-25
- Retracted
- no
- Corrections
- none
- Extent checked
- abstract only
- Conflicts of interest and funding
not stated in abstract/record
2. Research question
Is maternal seafood intake in pregnancy associated with child neurodevelopment?
3. Study design and population
- Study design
- Cohort study – Prospective birth cohort (ALSPAC)
- Population
Pregnant women and children
- Country
UK
- Period
ALSPAC (1990s)
- Sample size
11,875
- Inclusion and exclusion criteria
FFQ at 32 weeks
4. Methods and endpoints
- Exposure / intervention
Seafood intake (none, 1-340 g, >340 g/week)
- Comparator
>340 g/week
- Endpoints
Verbal IQ, behaviour, development to 8 years
- Statistical methods
Logistic regression with 28 confounders
5. Actual results
- Results
No seafood vs >340 g/week: OR 1.48 (1.16-1.90) for lowest-quartile verbal IQ; trend p=0.004; lower intake associated with suboptimal development.
- Absolute risks
not reported
- Authors' conclusion
Advice to limit seafood could be detrimental; nutrient loss risks greater than trace contaminant risks at 340 g/week.
6. Strengths
- Large
- Many confounders
7. Weaknesses
- Observational
- FFQ
8. Risk of bias
- Orienting tool
- ROBINS-E
- Type of assessment
- simplified assessment (abstract only)
- Full formal assessment
- no
- Overall risk of bias
- some concerns
- Rationale
Residual confounding by socio-economic status possible.
9. Assessment of the statistical interpretation
10. Relevance to the specific claim
Supports benefit of fish (C-FSH-14 benefit part).
11. Independent contrary findings
12. Transferability to Germany and Europe
High (UK).
13. Overall methodological judgement
Important benefit evidence; species not distinguished.
| Multidimensional assessment | |
|---|---|
| Authenticity of the source | verified |
| Methodological quality | moderate |
| Risk of bias | some concerns |
| Precision of results | moderate |
| Directness | direct |
| Reproducibility | partly replicated |
| Consistency with the overall evidence | mixed |
| Regional transferability | high |
| Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive) | not applicable |