CREATINE SUPPLEMENTATION FOR POST-EXERCISE MUSCLE DAMAGE

Exercise-induced muscle damage (EIMD) can occur from recent or unusual physical activity, leading to a temporary reduction in muscle function. And increased pain. Several articles indicate the positive impacts of creatine on EIMD.

Objective:

Evaluate the impact of creatine on EIMD.

Methods:

Online searches were performed in Scopus, Embase, Medline and Google scholar until March 2022.

Results:

Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria. To assess the quality of the studies, the Cochrane collaboration system was used for risk and bias analysis. Due to the high heterogeneity of interventions and studies designed, a meta-analysis was not performed. The current paper reveals that creatine intake is preferable to inactive recovery and only a rest period between several harmful and exhausting physical activities.

Conclusion:

Benefits were attenuated in EIMD markers that reduce muscle operation and muscle strength loss after exercise. Level of evidence II; Therapeutic studies - Manuscript review.

Keywords:
Creatine; Soft Tissue Injuries; Meta-Analysis; Creatine Kinase; L-Lactate Dehydrogenase

Authors (y)	Studies Designation Features					Mean age (y)	Sampling		EIMD markers
Authors (y)	country	trained situation	creatine dosage(gram/d)	lenght (d)	sex	Mean age (y)	creatine	placebo	EIMD markers
Kreider et al. (1998)	USA	T	15.75	28	M	19.9	11	14	CK^≡ ≡ No significant difference between trials in any of follow up times. , LDH^≡ ≡ No significant difference between trials in any of follow up times.
Robinson et al. (2000)	UK	U	3	56	F	23.3	9	6	CK ^≡ ≡ No significant difference between trials in any of follow up times.
Rawson et al. (2001)	USA	U	20	5	M	26.9	12	11	CK ^≡ ≡ No significant difference between trials in any of follow up times. , LDH ^≡ ≡ No significant difference between trials in any of follow up times.
Kreider et al. (2003) ^* * Not randomized.	USA	T	15.75	5	M	21	54	44	CK ^≡ ≡ No significant difference between trials in any of follow up times. , LDH ^≡ ≡ No significant difference between trials in any of follow up times.
Santos et al. (2004)^* * Not randomized.	Brazil	T	5	21	M	25.5	18	16	CK ^≡ ≡ No significant difference between trials in any of follow up times. , LDH ^↓ ↓ Intervention group significantly lower compare to control group in any of follow up times;
Rawson et al. (2007)	USA	U	3	10	M	22.1	11	11	CK ^≡ ≡ No significant difference between trials in any of follow up times. , LDH ^≡ ≡ No significant difference between trials in any of follow up times.
Machado et al. (2009)	Brazil	U	40	5	M	21.2	15	12	CK ^≡ ≡ No significant difference between trials in any of follow up times.
Cooke et al. (2009)	Australia	U	21	5	M	22.1	7	7	CK ^↓ ↓ Intervention group significantly lower compare to control group in any of follow up times; , LDH ^≡ ≡ No significant difference between trials in any of follow up times.
Rosene et al. (2009)	USA	U	6	30	M	21.6	10	10	CK ^≡ ≡ No significant difference between trials in any of follow up times. , LDH ^≡ ≡ No significant difference between trials in any of follow up times.
Bassit et al. (2010)	Brazil	T	20	5	M	37.5	4	4	CK ^↓ ↓ Intervention group significantly lower compare to control group in any of follow up times; , LDH ^↓ ↓ Intervention group significantly lower compare to control group in any of follow up times;
McKinnon et al. (2012)	Canada	U	40	5	M & F	20.6	9	9	CK ^≡ ≡ No significant difference between trials in any of follow up times.
Veggi et al. (2013)	Brazil	U	5	6	M	24.2	9	9	CK ^↓ ↓ Intervention group significantly lower compare to control group in any of follow up times;
Cancela et al. (2015)	Uruguay	T	3	56	M	19.6	7	5	CK ^≡ ≡ No significant difference between trials in any of follow up times.
Wang et al. (2018)	Taiwan	T	20	28	M	20	15	15	CK ^↓ ↓ Intervention group significantly lower compare to control group in any of follow up times;
Kaviani et al. (2018)	Canada	U	5	56	M	23	9	9	CK ^≡ ≡ No significant difference between trials in any of follow up times. , LDH ^↓ ↓ Intervention group significantly lower compare to control group in any of follow up times;

Articles	Randomization Sequences Generation	Allocative concealments	Participants and personnel's blinding	Blinding's of outcomes evaluation	Incomplete outcomes information	Elective outcomes reporting's	Others source of bias	Total Bias Risk
Kreider et al. (1998)	U	U	U	H	L	L	L	moderate
Robinson et al. (2000)	U	U	U	H	L	H	L	moderate
Rawson et al. (2001)	U	U	U	H	L	L	L	moderate
Rawson et al. (2007)	U	U	U	H	L	L	L	moderate
Machado et al. (2009)	L	U	L	U	L	L	L	moderate
Cooke et al. (2009)	U	U	U	H	L	H	L	moderate
Rosene et al. (2009)	U	U	H	H	L	L	L	moderate
Bassit et al. (2010)	U	U	U	U	L	U	L	moderate
McKinnon et al. (2012)	U	U	H	H	L	L	L	moderate
Veggi et al. (2013)	U	U	H	H	L	U	L	moderate
Cancela et al. (2015)	U	U	H	H	L	L	L	moderate
Wang et al. (2018)	U	U	U	U	L	L	L	moderate
Kaviani et al. (2018)	U	U	U	U	L	L	L	moderate

Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina do Exercício e do Esporte Av. Brigadeiro Luís Antônio, 278, 6º and., 01318-901 São Paulo SP, Tel.: +55 11 3106-7544, Fax: +55 11 3106-8611 - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
E-mail: atharbme@uol.com.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Correspondence: Mingchuan Gao Shenyang, Liaoning, China. 110044. oscar0604@sina.com