ReviewThe World Allergy Organization journal2026
Prevalence of food allergies in older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in The World Allergy Organization journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Food allergies (FAs) are rising worldwide, but research has mainly focused on younger groups. Older adults may have distinct risk factors (eg, immunosenescence, chronic inflammation, micronutrient deficiencies, multimorbidity, and polypharmacy) that could influence allergic responses. This review aimed to assess FAs prevalence in older adults. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic search across PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science identified studies published up to December 2024. The review planning phase began in July 2023 and included protocol drafting and methodological discussions. No study screening, data extraction, or data analysis was conducted prior to PROSPERO submission and registration (CRD42023445399). Studies reporting FAs prevalence in older adults by all available methods were included. Self-reported and sensitization-based estimates reflect potential FAs, whereas challenge-confirmed FAs represent clinically confirmed allergy. The risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist. Data were pooled using random-effects meta-analyses. Results: Sixteen studies, involving 33,165 older adults from 11 countries, were included qualitatively, and fourteen were included quantitatively. Most studies were graded as having a moderate risk of bias. The pooled prevalence of self-reported FAs was 12% (95% CI 9-15). Self-reported physician-diagnosed FAs showed a prevalence of 7% (95% CI 5-8). Specific IgE (sIgE) sensitization indicated a prevalence of 14% (95% CI 10-18). Only 1 study reported challenge-confirmed FAs with a prevalence of 0.5%. Exploratory comparisons suggest similar combined prevalence estimates across low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) (10%) and high-income countries (9%), though the small number of LMIC studies and differences in assessment methods preclude firm conclusions. sIgE sensitization to common allergens was 3% for cow's milk and peanut, 2% for egg and 1% for soy. Conclusion: Older adults show meaningful rates of self-reported food-related symptoms and sensitization. However, the prevalence of clinically confirmed FAs remains poorly defined. The limited evidence and heterogeneity across studies highlight the need for standardized diagnostic criteria and greater inclusion of older adults in future FAs research. Protocol registration: www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero identifier is CRD42023445399.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.