Creatine Supplementation for Muscle Growth: A Scoping Review of Randomized Clinical Trials from 2012 to 2021
Wu SH, Chen KL, Hsu C, Chen HC, Chen JY, Yu SY, Shiu YJ
Nutrients · 34 citations
Review labels
Neutral facts our review recorded about how this study was done. They describe method, never whether we like the result.
How it was studied
- Design
- Systematic review (classified by our AI screen)
- Studied in
- People
- Main outcome
- Health markers and function
Who paid for it
- Funding
- Funding not disclosed
Publication
- Published
- 2022-03-16 · Nutrients · vol. 14 · issue 6 · p. 1255
- Publisher
- Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
- Cited
- 54 citations · more than 97% of similar papers · 5.0× the field average
- Impact
- Top 10% most cited in its field
- References
- 48 works
- Access
- Open access (journal) · CC-BY
- Research areas
- Muscle metabolism and nutrition · Sports Performance and Training · Sports injuries and prevention
- Keywords
- Creatine, Medicine, Randomized controlled trial, Physical therapy, Creatine Monohydrate, MEDLINE, Internal medicine, Placebo, Alternative medicine, Pathology, Biology
- MeSH
- muscle, skeletal, humans, muscular diseases, creatine, dietary supplements, aged, randomized controlled trials as topic
7 authors
From TW
- Shih-Hao WuChina Medical University; China Medical University Hospital; National Taiwan University of Sport
- Kuan‐Lin ChenYuan's General Hospital; National Taiwan University of Sport
- Chin Hsu · correspondingNational Taiwan University of Sport
- Hang-Cheng ChenChina Medical University; China Medical University Hospital
- Jianyu ChenNational Taiwan University of Sport
- Sheng-Yan YuNational Taiwan University of Sport
Abstract
Creatine supplementation is the most popular ergonomic aid for athletes in recent years and is used for improving sport performance and muscle growth. However, creatine supplementation is not always effective in all populations. To address these discrepancies, numerous studies have examined the use of creatine supplementation for muscle growth. This scoping review aimed to investigate the effects of creatine supplementation for muscle growth in various populations, in which Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review framework is used to present the findings. For this study, we performed a systematic search of the PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases for theses and articles published between 2012 and 2021. A manual search of the reference lists of the uncovered studies was conducted and an expert panel was consulted. Two reviewers screened the articles for eligibility according to the inclusion criteria. Methodological quality was assessed using the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute's (NHLBI's) quality assessment tool. A total of 16 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were finally included. All the authors extracted key data and descriptively analyzed the data. Thematic analysis was used to categorize the results into themes. Three major themes related to muscle growth were generated: (i) subjects of creatine supplementation-muscle growth is more effective in healthy young subjects than others; (ii) training of subjects-sufficient training is important in all populations; (iii) future direction and recommendation of creatine supplementation for muscle growth-injury prevention and utilization in medical practice. Overall, creatine is an efficient form of supplementation for muscle growth in the healthy young population with adequate training in a variety of dosage strategies and athletic activities. However, more well-designed, long-term RCTs with larger sample sizes are needed in older and muscular disease-related populations to definitively determine the effects of creatine supplementation on muscle growth in these other populations.
Abstract via Europe PMC. Copyright remains with the authors or publisher (CC BY).
Community trust
Loading…
How much do you trust this study's findings?
Comments
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inSomething wrong here?
Flag this study if its information, labels or funding look wrong. An editor reviews every flag.
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inEducational information about published research. Not medical advice, and not a recommendation to start or stop anything.