ArticleHeliyon2022
Analysis of the efficacy, safety, and cost of alternative forms of creatine available for purchase on Amazon.com: are label claims supported by science?
Article in Heliyon, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Creatine supplementation protocols with or without training interventions on body composition: a GRADE-assessed systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis.Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition · 2024Pooled it
- Methodological Approaches to Bioavailability of Oral Creatine in Randomized Controlled Trials: A Meta-Research Study.Nutrients · 2026Article
- Labeling Compliance of Dietary Supplements: An Observational Study in the Beni Mellal Khenifra Region.Food science & nutrition · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Creatine monohydrate (CM) is an established and effective dietary supplement, but it is not the only form of creatine. We analyzed forms of creatine for sale on Amazon.com" title = "http://Amazon.com">Amazon.com and evaluated if the advertised claims are supported by the available scientific evidence. We also analyzed the cost per gram of the forms of creatine. A total of 175 creatine supplements were included and we reported the total creatine content per serving, form(s) of creatine in products, product claims, and prevalence of products third party certified. The identified products contained 16 forms of creatine other than CM. The prevalence of products containing functional ingredients with CM or forms of creatine was 29.7%, and the prevalence of products containing blends of different forms of creatine was 21.7%. Only 8% of products were third party certified. The products using only CM (n = 91) had a mean price per gram of $0.12 ± 0.08, whereas products using only other forms of creatine (n = 32) had a mean price per gram of $0.26 ± 0.17. Approximately 88% of alternative creatine products in this study are classified as having limited to no evidence to support bioavailability, efficacy, and safety.
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.