Meta-analysisindependent cross-checkabstract checked★ key study I-FSH-119 standard review
How common is shrimp allergy?
Prevalence of shrimp allergy: a meta-analysis based on different diagnostic methods.
Overview
Chen J et al.. Front Allergy 2025 · PMID 40958988 · DOI 10.3389/falgy.2025.1635274
Across 40 studies, about 2% reported shrimp allergy and 0.5% were confirmed by food challenge.
Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: moderate
Plain-language summary
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Estimate shrimp allergy prevalence.
- How was the study done?
Meta-analysis of 40 studies.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
Populations worldwide.
- What was actually found?
0.43-2.76% depending on method.
- How large was the observed effect?
Food challenge 0.50%.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Shrimp allergy is real but uncommon.
- What are the study's limitations?
High heterogeneity.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Contradicts 'most people'.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Moderate.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Prevalence in Egypt.
Scientific in-depth review
1. Full reference
- Authors
- Chen J et al.
- Journal
- Front Allergy
- Year
- 2025
- Identifier
- PMID 40958988 DOI 10.3389/falgy.2025.1635274
- 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 commercial conflicts
2. Research question
What is the prevalence of shrimp allergy by diagnostic method?
3. Study design and population
- Study design
- Meta-analysis – Systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO CRD420251003956)
- Population
General populations (children and adults)
- Country
Multiple
- Period
Literature to 30 September 2024
- Sample size
40 studies
- Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Studies reporting shrimp allergy prevalence
4. Methods and endpoints
- Exposure / intervention
Shrimp
- Endpoints
Prevalence by diagnostic method
- Statistical methods
Random/fixed-effect pooling
5. Actual results
- Results
Pooled prevalence: self-reported symptomatic 1.90%; self-reported physician-diagnosed 1.94%; skin prick or specific IgE 2.76%; symptomatic testing 0.43%; food challenge confirmed 0.50%. Considerable heterogeneity; no publication bias detected.
- Absolute risks
About 2 in 100 by self-report, 0.5 in 100 by food challenge
- Authors' conclusion
Prevalence varies with diagnostic criteria, age and region.
6. Strengths
- Registered protocol
- Several databases
- Stratified by diagnostic method
7. Weaknesses
- Considerable heterogeneity
- Abstract only
8. Risk of bias
- Orienting tool
- AMSTAR 2
- Type of assessment
- simplified assessment (abstract only)
- Full formal assessment
- no
- Overall risk of bias
- some concerns
- Rationale
Abstract only.
9. Assessment of the statistical interpretation
10. Relevance to the specific claim
C-FSH-15: shrimp allergy affects roughly 0.5-3% depending on method, not most people.
11. Independent contrary findings
12. Transferability to Germany and Europe
Moderate.
13. Overall methodological judgement
Independent confirmation of I-FSH-16.
| Multidimensional assessment | |
|---|---|
| Authenticity of the source | verified |
| Methodological quality | moderate |
| Risk of bias | some concerns |
| Precision of results | moderate |
| Directness | direct |
| Reproducibility | replicated |
| Consistency with the overall evidence | consistent |
| Regional transferability | moderate |
| Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive) | not applicable |
14. Open questions
15. Linked fact checks
- Shrimp, squid and crustaceans are forbidden because they are allergens for most people, are unsuitable for human consumption and are highly antigenic (provoke the immune system). – Studies contradicting or limiting the claim