Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11511741›Full record

ReviewOccupational and environmental medicine2001

Occupational seafood allergy: a review.

M F Jeebhay, T G Robins, S B Lehrer, A L Lopata

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Occupational and environmental medicine, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

48 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 260 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Update on occupational contact urticaria: a systematic narrative review.Current opinion in allergy and clinical immunology · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. [Food allergy as occupational disease].Dermatologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. [Exceptional occupational allergies due to food of animal origin].Der Hautarzt; Zeitschrift fur Dermatologie, Venerologie, und verwandte Gebiete · 2021
    Review
  15. IgE-Mediated Fish Allergy in Children.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2021
    Review
  16. BioMed research international · 2021
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Chitinases: Therapeutic Scaffolds for Allergy and Inflammation.Recent patents on inflammation & allergy drug discovery · 2020
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

M F JeebhayOccupational and Environmental Health Research Unit, Department of Public Health, University of Cape Town, Room 1111C, First Floor, Anatomy Building, Anzio Road, Observatory, 7925, South Africa. mjeebhay@cormack.uct.ac.za
T G Robins
S B Lehrer
A L Lopata
University of Cape Town · ZA

Funding

PHS HHS R01 F002304
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecent years have seen increased levels of production and consumption of seafood, leading to more frequent reporting of allergic reactions in occupational and domestic settings. This review focuses on occupational allergy in the fishing and seafood processing industry. REVIEW: Workers involved in either manual or automated processing of crabs, prawns, mussels, fish, and fishmeal production are commonly exposed to various constituents of seafood. Aerosolisation of seafood and cooking fluid during processing are potential occupational situations that could result in sensitisation through inhalation. There is great variability of aerosol exposure within and among various jobs with reported allergen concentrations ranging from 0.001 to 5.061(microg/m(3)). Occupational dermal exposure occurs as a result of unprotected handling of seafood and its byproducts. Occupational allergies have been reported in workers exposed to arthropods (crustaceans), molluscs, pisces (bony fish) and other agents derived from seafood. The prevalence of occupational asthma ranges from 7% to 36%, and for occupational protein contact dermatitis, from 3% to 11%. These health outcomes are mainly due to high molecular weight proteins in seafood causing an IgE mediated response. Cross reactivity between various species within a major seafood grouping also occurs. Limited evidence from dose-response relations indicate that development of symptoms is related to duration or intensity of exposure. The evidence for atopy as a risk factor for occupational sensitisation and asthma is supportive, whereas evidence for cigarette smoking is limited. Disruption of the intact skin barrier seems to be an important added risk factor for occupational protein contact dermatitis.

conclusionThe range of allergic disease associated with occupational exposure to crab is well characterised, whereas for other seafood agents the evidence is somewhat limited. There is a need for further epidemiological studies to better characterise this risk. More detailed characterisation of specific protein antigens in aerosols and associated establishment of dose-response relations for acute and chronic exposure to seafood; the respective roles of skin contact and inhalational exposure in allergic sensitisation and cross reactivity; and the contribution of host associated factors in the development of occupational seafood allergies are important areas for future research.

Indexed as

AsthmaDermatitis, Allergic ContactDermatitis, OccupationalFood HandlingHumansHypersensitivityOccupational DiseasesOccupational ExposureSeafoodUrticaria

Identifiers

PMID11511741
PMCPMC1740192
OpenAlexW2103826062

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.