Evidence Hub

Creatine supplementation for optimization of physical function in the patient at risk of functional disability: A systematic review and meta-analysis

T. Davies, Naomi Watson, J. Pilkington, T. McClelland, G. Azzopardi, R. Pearse, J. Prowle, Z. Puthucheary

JPEN - Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, 2024

1,076 participants · 15 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of creatine replacement through supplementation for the optimization of physical function in the population at risk of functional disability is unclear.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and CINAHL from inception to November 2022. Studies included were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing creatine supplementation with placebos in older adults and adults with chronic disease. The primary outcome was physical function measured by the sit-to-stand test after pooling data using random-effects modeling. We also performed a Bayesian meta-analysis to describe the treatment effect in probability terms. Secondary outcomes included other measures of physical function, muscle function, and body composition. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool.

RESULTS

We identified 33 RCTs, comprising 1076 participants. From six trials reporting the primary outcome, the pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) was 0.51 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.01-1.00; I2 = 62%; P = 0.04); using weakly informative priors, the posterior probability that creatine supplementation improves physical function was 66.7%. Upper-body muscle strength (SMD: 0.25; 95% CI: 0.06-0.44; I2 = 0%; P = 0.01), handgrip strength (SMD 0.23; 95% CI: 0.01-0.45; I2 = 0%; P = 0.04), and lean tissue mass (MD 1.08 kg; 95% CI: 0.77-1.38; I2 = 26%; P < 0.01) improved with creatine supplementation. The quality of…

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: 1,076 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