Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27328852›Full record

SynthesisSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2017

Creatine Supplementation and Upper Limb Strength Performance: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Charlotte Lanhers, Bruno Pereira, Geraldine Naughton, Marion Trousselard, François-Xavier Lesage, Frédéric Dutheil

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 59 papers, 20 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
59citing papers in PubMed, 20 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

59 citing papers in PubMed, 20 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Heart Rate Variability in Hyperthyroidism: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Effects of a Short Daytime Nap on the Cognitive Performance: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Pooled it
  12. Breastfeeding after Returning to Work: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Benefits of Creatine Supplementation for Vegetarians Compared to Omnivorous Athletes: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Charlotte LanhersPreventive and Occupational Medicine, University Hospital of Clermont-Ferrand (CHU), 58 rue Montalembert, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Bruno PereiraClinical Research and Innovation Direction, University Hospital of Clermont-Ferrand (CHU), Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Geraldine NaughtonSchool of Exercise Science, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Marion TrousselardNeurophysiology of Stress, Armies' Biomedical Research Institute, Armies' Health Service, Bretigny sur Orge, France.
François-Xavier LesageOccupational Medicine, University Hospital of Montpellier (CHU), Montpellier, France.
Frédéric DutheilSchool of Exercise Science, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. frederic.dutheil@acu.edu.au.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCreatine is the most widely used supplementation to increase performance in strength; however, the most recent meta-analysis focused specifically on supplementation responses in muscles of the lower limbs without regard to upper limbs.

objectiveWe aimed to systematically review the effect of creatine supplementation on upper limb strength performance.

methodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analyses of all randomized controlled trials comparing creatine supplementation with a placebo, with strength performance measured in exercises shorter than 3 min in duration. The search strategy used the keywords 'creatine', 'supplementation', and 'performance'. Independent variables were age, sex and level of physical activity at baseline, while dependent variables were creatine loading, total dose, duration, time interval between baseline (T0) and the end of the supplementation (T1), and any training during supplementation. We conducted three meta-analyses: at T0 and T1, and on changes between T0 and T1. Each meta-analysis was stratified within upper limb muscle groups.

resultsWe included 53 studies (563 individuals in the creatine supplementation group and 575 controls). Results did not differ at T0, while, at T1, the effect size (ES) for bench press and chest press were 0.265 (95 % CI 0.132-0.398; p < 0.001) and 0.677 (95 % CI 0.149-1.206; p = 0.012), respectively. Overall, pectoral ES was 0.289 (95 % CI 0.160-0.419; p = 0.000), and global upper limb ES was 0.317 (95 % CI 0.185-0.449; p < 0.001). Meta-analysis of changes between T0 and T1 gave similar results. The meta-regression showed no link with characteristics of population or supplementation, demonstrating the efficacy of creatine independently of all listed conditions.

conclusionCreatine supplementation is effective in upper limb strength performance for exercise with a duration of less than 3  min, independent of population characteristics, training protocols, and supplementary doses or duration.

Indexed as

Dietary SupplementsCreatineHumansLower ExtremityMuscle, SkeletalMuscle StrengthRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicUpper ExtremityCreatine

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.