Evidence Hub

Impact of creatine supplementation alone or combined with exercise on inflammatory and clinical outcomes in chronic musculoskeletal pain treated in the rheumatological field: a systematic review

Joaquín Salazar-Méndez, Rodrigo Núñez-Cortés, Cristian Salazar-Orellana, L. Suso-Martí, Joaquín Calatayud, Iván Cuyúl-Vásquez, Katherine Pizarro-Corbalán, Felipe Ponce-Fuentes

Nutrition (Burbank, Los Angeles County, Calif.), 2026

189 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

Creatine supplementation has demonstrated ergogenic and anabolic effects in healthy and clinical populations. However, its potential therapeutic role in individuals with chronic musculoskeletal pain treated in rheumatological contexts remains unclear. The aim was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of creatine supplementation on pain, physical function/disability, quality of life, muscle strength, skeletal muscle mass, and inflammatory markers in people with chronic musculoskeletal pain usually treated from the rheumatological field. A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Searches were performed in MEDLINE, Web of Science, CINAHL, Scopus, and EMBASE up to July 2026. Eligible studies were randomized or nonrandomized clinical trials that provided creatine supplementation alone or in combination with exercise as a treatment compared to a control or placebo group. Eight studies (n = 189) were included, encompassing fibromyalgia, osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Creatine dosages varied from chronic low-dose to loading protocols (20 g/d, 2-5 g/d). Combined creatine plus resistance training may improve strength, skeletal muscle mass, and quality of life beyond exercise alone in osteoarthritis. Trials on fibromyalgia suggest an increase in muscle strength, but inconsistent effects on pain. Rheumatoid arthritis studies suggest gains in skeletal muscle mass and, in pilot studies, reduced disease activity. No major adverse…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, 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: 189 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