Narrative reviewindependent cross-checkabstract checked I-FSH-117 standard review
Review on hormones in fish farming
Steroid hormones in fish, caution for present and future: A review.
Overview
Islam P et al.. Toxicol Rep 2024 · PMID 39323426 · DOI 10.1016/j.toxrep.2024.101733
Hormones are used in some fish farming and residues are poorly monitored; the review's health-harm statements are not well supported.
Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: very low
Plain-language summary
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Review hormone use in fish.
- How was the study done?
Narrative review.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
Published reports.
- What was actually found?
Use common; monitoring weak.
- How large was the observed effect?
None.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Hormone use exists; size of risk unknown.
- What are the study's limitations?
Low quality.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Partly supports the premise.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Low.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Harm to consumers.
Scientific in-depth review
1. Full reference
- Authors
- Islam P et al.
- Journal
- Toxicol Rep
- Year
- 2024
- Identifier
- PMID 39323426 DOI 10.1016/j.toxrep.2024.101733
- Verification
- verified – PubMed efetch 2026-10-26; Crossref checked
- Retracted
- no
- Corrections
- none
- Extent checked
- abstract only
- Conflicts of interest and funding
Authors declare no competing interests
2. Research question
Use, residues and impacts of steroid hormones in fish production
3. Study design and population
- Study design
- Narrative review – Narrative review
- Population
Fish production globally
- Country
Global (authors from Bangladesh)
- Period
not stated
- Sample size
Not applicable
- Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Not described in abstract
4. Methods and endpoints
- Exposure / intervention
Testosterone, estrogen, progesterone, cortisol
- Endpoints
Residues, health hazards
- Statistical methods
None
5. Actual results
- Results
Steroid hormones 'were frequently used in fish production to promote growth and reproduction'; 'the data on hormonal residue in fish was less due to a lack of effective monitoring programs'. The review states that indiscriminate use left residues above FAO/WHO limits and caused health hazards in consumers (early puberty, cancers); regulation varies by country.
- Absolute risks
not reported
- Authors' conclusion
A 'wake-up call' on hormone residues in fish.
6. Strengths
- Documents that hormones are used in fish farming and that monitoring is weak
7. Weaknesses
- Narrative review without systematic methods in the abstract
- Causal health-harm statements not supported by human outcome data in the abstract; likely overstated
8. Risk of bias
- Orienting tool
- none applicable
- Type of assessment
- simplified assessment (abstract only)
- Full formal assessment
- no
- Overall risk of bias
- high
- Rationale
Narrative review with strong unsupported causal language.
9. Assessment of the statistical interpretation
10. Relevance to the specific claim
C-FSH-16: hormone use in fish farming exists; harm to consumers is not demonstrated.
11. Independent contrary findings
12. Transferability to Germany and Europe
Low.
13. Overall methodological judgement
Weak; used only to show that hormone use in aquaculture is documented.
| Multidimensional assessment | |
|---|---|
| Authenticity of the source | verified |
| Methodological quality | very low |
| Risk of bias | high |
| Precision of results | not applicable |
| Directness | indirect |
| Reproducibility | unknown |
| Consistency with the overall evidence | unknown |
| Regional transferability | low |
| Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive) | not applicable |