ArticleCureus2022
Pharmacokinetic Evaluation of a Single 5-Gram Bolus of Creatine Monohydrate Versus Two Other Creatine-Containing Investigational Products.
Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 8 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine the relative pharmacokinetics of creatine monohydrate delivered as a formula or as a pure powder (all mixed in solution). A single 5 g bolus of creatine monohydrate was ingested as CreaBev 1, CreaBev 2, or creatine monohydrate. Participants we assigned a test product and monitored in a supervised laboratory setting for ingestion and all blood draws starting 30 min post-ingestion to the 6-h mark. Standard pharmacokinetic analysis was undertaken to determine relative maximum concentration (Cmax), time to maximum concentration (Tmax), and area under the curve (AUC) for the products. Cmax data indicate that CreaBev 1 10.55±4.10, CreaBev 2 15.45±5.48, and creatine monohydrate 12.77±4.0 nmol/h/μL. The Tmax analysis demonstrated CreaBev 1 1.20±1.01, CreaBev 2 1.23±0.65, and creatine monohydrate 0.91±0.2 h. The AUC data indicate that CreaBev 1 22.90±9.17, CreaBev 2 33.92±9.52, and creatine monohydrate 29.58±11.93 nmol/h/μL. When examining the data for pharmacokinetics, the AUC and Cmax pharmacokinetics were greatest for CreaBev 2 (p<0.021 and 0.020). Within the confines of this study, CreaBev 2 produced the highest blood concentrations of creatine as compared to creatine monohydrate and CreaBev 1.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.