SynthesisJournal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition2026
Creatine supplementation in soccer players: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimSoccer places repeated demands on short-duration, high-intensity performance, including sprints, accelerations, jumps, and technical actions performed over the course of a match. Because these efforts depend heavily on rapid adenosine triphosphate (ATP) resynthesis, creatine is a plausible ergogenic aid for soccer players. However, findings in soccer-specific studies have been inconsistent, and previous reviews have addressed narrower questions using smaller evidence sets. This systematic review therefore examined the effects of creatine supplementation on performance, body composition, and recovery/fatigue-related outcomes in soccer players.
methodsPubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched from inception to 15 May 2025 in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement. We included controlled clinical trials of creatine supplementation in male or female soccer players of any age or competitive level when an eligible placebo, control, or comparison condition was available. Outcomes were grouped into performance, body composition, and recovery/fatigue domains. Domains from the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2) and the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool were used to produce study-level methodological summaries rather than formal result-specific risk-of-bias assessments. Because the studies differed substantially in design, supplementation protocols, populations, and outcomes, findings were synthesised qualitatively rather than pooled in a meta-analysis.
resultsSource-level verification left 45 eligible reports representing 41 unique studies: 28 randomised parallel-group studies, 2 randomised crossover/repeated-condition studies, and 11 non-randomised or allocation-unverifiable controlled studies. Some trials reported favourable findings for repeated-sprint performance, anaerobic power, and muscular strength, but the comparative evidence was inconsistent and the certainty of evidence was very low. Findings for vertical jump performance and technical skills were mixed, while change-of-direction and endurance outcomes showed no consistent benefit. Recovery- and fatigue-related findings were also largely null or inconsistent. Body mass often increased, particularly after loading protocols, whereas evidence for gains in lean mass was limited and inconsistent.
conclusionThe soccer-specific evidence for creatine supplementation remains suggestive rather than conclusive. Favourable findings have been reported for some repeated-sprint, anaerobic-power, and strength outcomes, but the comparative evidence is heterogeneous, often limited by unclear or nonsignificant between-group effects, and of very low certainty. Firm conclusions about efficacy are therefore not possible. Body mass commonly increased, especially after loading protocols, while effects on lean mass, endurance, change-of-direction ability, and recovery/fatigue-related outcomes remain uncertain.
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.