Systematic reviewindependent cross-checkabstract only checked★ key study I-FSH-16 in-depth review
How common is fish and shellfish allergy?
Prevalence of fish and shellfish allergy: A systematic review.
Overview
Moonesinghe H et al.. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2016 · PMID 27613460 · DOI 10.1016/j.anai.2016.07.015
With proper food challenges, under 1% of people were allergic to shellfish.
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 prevalence.
- How was the study done?
Systematic review.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
61 studies.
- What was actually found?
Minority condition.
- How large was the observed effect?
0-0.9% challenge-confirmed.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Most people are not allergic.
- What are the study's limitations?
Methods vary.
- 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?
Egypt-specific data.
Scientific in-depth review
1. Full reference
- Authors
- Moonesinghe H et al.
- Journal
- Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol
- Year
- 2016
- Identifier
- PMID 27613460 DOI 10.1016/j.anai.2016.07.015
- 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
Age-specific prevalence of fish and shellfish allergy worldwide
3. Study design and population
- Study design
- Systematic review – Systematic review of population-based prevalence studies
- Population
General populations
- Country
Worldwide
- Period
published 2016
- Sample size
61 studies
- Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Population-based cross-sectional and cohort studies
4. Methods and endpoints
- Endpoints
Prevalence
- Statistical methods
Prevalence with 95% CI
5. Actual results
- Results
Fish allergy 0-7%, shellfish allergy 0-10.3% depending on method; with food challenges: fish 0-0.3%, shellfish 0-0.9%; shellfish allergy possibly higher in Southeast Asia.
- Absolute risks
not reported
- Authors' conclusion
Few studies use DBPCFC; most rely on self-report.
6. Strengths
- Systematic
- Large
7. Weaknesses
- Heterogeneous diagnostic methods
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
9. Assessment of the statistical interpretation
10. Relevance to the specific claim
11. Independent contrary findings
12. Transferability to Germany and Europe
Moderate.
13. Overall methodological judgement
Clear evidence that shellfish allergy is a minority condition.
| 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
Egyptian prevalence.
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