Evidence Hub

The impact of creatine supplementation associated with resistance training on muscular strength and lean tissue mass in the aged: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Shao-Yi Liu, Nan Huang, Wen-Juan Wu, Xin-Ye Ouyang, Yu Luo, Yan-Biao Zhong, Mao-Yuan Wang, Li Xiao

European Review of Aging and Physical Activity, 2025

482 participants · 6 citations

Abstract

Sarcopenia is an age-related decline in muscle strength and mass, which significantly impacts the quality of life for older adults. Resistance training (RT) is well established as an effective intervention for sarcopenia. Some studies suggest that additional benefits may be obtained when RT is combined with creatine supplement (Cr). However, critical confounding factors, such as age and intervention duration, have not been systematically controlled in previous investigations. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to quantify the efficacy of Cr + RT on appendicular muscle strength and lean tissue mass in older adults, with a particular emphasis on temporal effect modification through duration-stratified subgroup analyses. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) through searches across eight databases. Eligible studies involved aged individuals undergoing resistance training (2–3 sessions/week) with Cr or placebo (PL) for 8-104 weeks. After screening, 8 RCTs (n = 482 participants) were included, assessing outcomes of lean tissue mass, chest press, and leg press strength. Compared to PL + RT, Cr + RT significantly improved lower limb strength (SMD = 0.29 [95% CI 0.00-0.57]; p = 0.05) and lean tissue mass (SMD = 0.27 [95% CI 0.02–0.53]; p = 0.03), but did not show significant improvements in upper extremity muscle strength. Subgroup analysis revealed intervention duration effects: interventions lasting ≤ 32 weeks (5…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 482 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free