Abigail Smith

Ms. Abigail Smith

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

7Years (2020-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
MLMark R. Lutz
Mark R. Lutz
JCJacob Charlamb
Jacob Charlamb
JKJoshua R. Kenna
Joshua R. Kenna
ASAbigail Smith
Abigail Smith
SGStephen J. Glatt
Stephen J. Glatt
AGAuyon J. Ghosh
Auyon J. Ghosh
Airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) is a protective mechanical ventilation mode for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) that theoretically may reduce ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI) and ARDS-related mortality. However, there is no standard method to set and adjust the APRV mode shown to be optimal. Therefore, we performed a meta-regression analysis to evaluate how the four individual APRV settings impacted the outcome in these patients. Methods: Studies investigating the use of the APRV mode for ARDS patients were searched from electronic databases. We tested individual settings, including (1) high airway pressure (PHigh); (2) low airway pressure (PLow); (3) time at high airway pressure (THigh); and (4) time at low pressure (TLow) for association with PaO2/FiO2 ratio and ICU length of stay. Results: There was no significant difference in PaO2/FiO2 ratio between the groups in any of the four settings (PHigh difference −12.0 [95% CI −100.4, 86.4]; PLow difference 54.3 [95% CI −52.6, 161.1]; TLow difference −27.19 [95% CI −127.0, 72.6]; THigh difference −51.4 [95% CI −170.3, 67.5]). There was high heterogeneity across all parameters (PhHgh I2 = 99.46%, PLow I2 = 99.16%, TLow I2 = 99.31%, THigh I2 = 99.29%). Conclusions: None of the four individual APRV settings independently were associated with differences in outcome. A holistic approach, analyzing all settings in combination, may improve APRV efficacy since it is known that small differences in ventilator settings can significantly alter mortality. Future clinical trials should set and adjust APRV based on the best current scientific evidence available.

25 December 2021 in Nutrients
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
JCJoseph Catania
Joseph Catania
NPNatasha G. Pandit
Natasha G. Pandit
JEJulie Melissa Ehrlich
Julie Melissa Ehrlich
MZMuizz Zaman
Muizz Zaman
ESElizabeth Stone
Elizabeth Stone
Aamer ImdadAamer Imdad
Aamer Imdad
Probiotics are commonly prescribed to promote a healthy gut microbiome in children. Our objective was to investigate the effects of probiotic supplementation on growth outcomes in children 0–59 months of age. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis which included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that administered probiotics to children aged 0–59 months, with growth outcomes as a result. We completed a random-effects meta-analysis and calculated a pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) or relative risk (RR) and reported with a 95% confidence interval (CI). We included 79 RCTs, 54 from high-income countries (HIC), and 25 from low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). LMIC data showed that probiotics may have a small effect on weight (SMD: 0.26, 95% CI: 0.11–0.42, grade-certainty = low) and height (SMD 0.16, 95% CI: 0.06–0.25, grade-certainty = moderate). HIC data did not show any clinically meaningful effect on weight (SMD: 0.01, 95% CI: −0.04–0.05, grade-certainty = moderate), or height (SMD: −0.01, 95% CI: −0.06–0.04, grade-certainty = moderate). There was no evidence that probiotics affected the risk of adverse events. We conclude that in otherwise healthy children aged 0–59 months, probiotics may have a small but heterogenous effect on weight and height in LMIC but not in children from HIC.

Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
Aamer ImdadAamer Imdad
Aamer Imdad
AWAlice G. Wang
Alice G. Wang
VAVaishali Adlakha
Vaishali Adlakha
NCNatalie M. Crespo
Natalie M. Crespo
JMJill Merrow
Jill Merrow
RRRachel Rosen
Rachel Rosen
This study was a systematic review and meta-analysis that assessed the risk of aspiration pneumonia in children with laryngeal penetration or tracheal aspiration via a video-fluoroscopic study (VFSS) and compared the results to those for children with neither condition. Systematic searches were conducted using databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Meta-analysis was used to obtain summary odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). The overall quality of evidence was assessed using the grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) criteria. In total, 13 studies were conducted with 3159 participants. Combined results from six studies showed that laryngeal penetration on VFSS may be associated with aspiration pneumonia compared to no laryngeal penetration; however, the summary estimate was imprecise and included the possibility of no association (OR 1.44, 95% CI 0.94, 2.19, evidence certainty: low). Data from seven studies showed that tracheal aspiration might be associated with aspiration pneumonia compared to no tracheal aspiration (OR 2.72, 95% CI 1.86, 3.98, evidence certainty: moderate). The association between aspiration pneumonia and laryngeal penetration through VFSS seems to be weaker than that for tracheal aspiration. Prospective cohort studies with clear definitions of laryngeal penetration and that measure clinical and patient reported outcomes are needed to further define the association between laryngeal penetration and aspiration pneumonia.

17 March 2020 in Nutrients
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
Aamer ImdadAamer Imdad
Aamer Imdad
FRFaseeha Rehman
Faseeha Rehman
EDEvan Davis
Evan Davis
SASuzanna Attia
Suzanna Attia
DRDeepika Ranjit
Deepika Ranjit
ZBZulfiqar Bhutta
Zulfiqar Bhutta
Background: Suboptimal nutritional status of a newborn is a risk factor for short- and long-term morbidity and mortality. The objectives of this review were to assess the efficacy and effectiveness of neonatal synthetic vitamin A supplementation, dextrose gel and probiotic supplementation for prevention of morbidity and mortality during infancy in low and middle-income countries. Methods: We included randomized trials. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality. We conducted electronic searches on multiple databases. Data were meta-analyzed to obtain relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Studies for vitamin A and Probiotics were analyzed separately. No studies were found for dextrose gel supplementation during neonatal period. The overall rating of evidence was determined by Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Results: Sixteen studies assessed the effect of vitamin A supplementation during the neonatal period. Based on pooled data from community-based studies only, there was no significant effect of vitamin A on all-cause mortality at age 1 month (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.90, 1.08), 6 months (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.89–1.08) and 12 months (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.94, 1.14) but increased risk of bulging fontanelle (RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.12, 2.09). The overall quality of evidence was high for the above outcomes. Thirty-three studies assessed the effect of probiotic supplementation during the neonatal period and were mostly conducted in the hospital setting. Probiotics reduced the risk of all-cause mortality (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66, 0.96), necrotizing enterocolitis (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.35, 0.59) and neonatal sepsis (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.70, 0.86). The grade ratings for the above three outcomes were high. Conclusions: Vitamin A supplementation during the neonatal period does not reduce all-cause neonatal or infant mortality in low and middle-income countries in the community setting. Probiotic supplementation during the neonatal period seems to reduce all-cause mortality, NEC, and sepsis in babies born low birth weight and/or preterm in the hospital setting.

23 January 2022 in Nutrients
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
JEJulie Melissa Ehrlich
Julie Melissa Ehrlich
JCJoseph Catania
Joseph Catania
MZMuizz Zaman
Muizz Zaman
ESEmily Tanner Smith
Emily Tanner Smith
ASAbigail Smith
Abigail Smith
Aamer ImdadAamer Imdad
Aamer Imdad
Many infants do not receive breastmilk for the recommended 2-year duration. Instead, alternative milk beverages are often used, including infant formula and raw animal milk products. The purpose of this systematic review was to summarize the effect of animal milk consumption, compared to infant formula, on health outcomes in non-breastfed or mixed-fed infants aged 6–11 months. We searched multiple databases and followed Cochrane guidelines for conducting the review. The primary outcomes were anemia, gastrointestinal blood loss, weight-for-age, length-for-age, and weight-for-length. Nine studies were included: four randomized controlled trials (RCT) and five cohort studies. All studies, except one, were conducted in high income countries. There was a low certainty of evidence that cow’s milk increased the risk of anemia compared to formula milk (Cohort studies RR: 2.26, 95% CI: 1.15, 4.43, RCTs: RR: 4.03, 95% CI: 1.68, 9.65) and gastrointestinal blood loss (Cohort study RR: 1.52, 95% CI: 0.73, 3.16, RCTs: RR: 3.14, 95% CI: 0.98, 10.04). Additionally, there was low certainty evidence that animal milk consumption may not have a differential effect on weight and length-for-age compared to formula milk. Overall, the evidence was of low certainty and no solid conclusions can be drawn from this data. Further studies are needed from low- and middle-income countries to assess optimal milk type in non-breastfed infants aged 6–11 months.

22 February 2025 in Psychiatry Research
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
JPJohn Paliakkara
John Paliakkara
SEStacy Ellenberg
Stacy Ellenberg
AUAndrew Ursino
Andrew Ursino
ASAbigail Smith
Abigail Smith
JEJames Evans
James Evans
YZYanli Zhang-James
Yanli Zhang-James