Effectiveness of Creatine in Metabolic Performance: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Using the guidelines from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), this meta-analysis (MA) tried to figure out how well creatine (Cr) improves metabolic performance. We searched Google Scholar, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library to identify relevant randomized clinical trials (RCTs) exploring the various effects of Cr across different age groups compared to a placebo (PLA). We also investigated the synergistic effects of combining other supplements with Cr. In order to emphasize the different ways and sports where Cr has been used in the past years, we found from the selected articles that Cr demonstrated a more pronounced effect during aerobic or anaerobic exercise compared to PLA groups in the studies. Furthermore, in sports that demand significant cumulative energy, such as long-distance races, biking, or triathlons, athletes have observed performance enhancements with Cr supplementation. We also stipulate that Cr enhances resistance training in people over 50 years old and that adding other training supplements, such as β-hydroxy β-methylbutyrate (HMB), synergistically improves training outcomes when combined with Cr. The current MA was based on a thorough analysis of 10 separate studies. When these results were added together, we found that taking Cr supplements demonstrated statistically significant benefits over PLA. In conclusion, the present MA has found evidence that Cr has positive effects on metabolic outcomes for people who consume it.

Keywords: creatine supplement sarcopenia timing muscle mass strength strategies; endurance training; muscle mass and gait speed in elderly; physical fitness; strength-training.

Figure 1. Identification of studies via databases and registers.

Figure 2. Forest plot for studies about the efficacy of creatine vs. placebo in muscle performance.

In favor of creatine, odds ratio 5.98. References: [11-13]

Figure 3. Forest plot for studies about the efficacy of creatine vs. placebo in athletes.

In favor of placebo, the odds ratio was 1.99. References: [11,13,15,16,19]

Figure 4. Forest plot for studies about the overall efficacy of creatine vs. placebo.

The forest plot favors placebo with an odds ratio of 2.51. References: [11-20]

Figure 5. Funnel plot of included studies evaluating the efficacy of creatine vs. placebo.

References: [11-20]