Bioavailability, Efficacy, Safety, and Regulatory Status of Creatine and Related Compounds: A Critical Review.
Level 5 - mechanism / opinion, no new human data
Narrative critical review without systematic search or meta-analytic methodology.
PubMed 35268011 · doi:10.3390/nu14051035
What was done
The authors conducted a critical review summarizing the physicochemical properties, bioavailability, efficacy, safety, and regulatory status of creatine monohydrate compared to alternative marketed novel creatine forms. They categorized marketed forms by evidence strength regarding bioavailability and safety, and outlined evidentiary requirements needed to substantiate supplement claims.
What was found
The abstract reports no numerical values, statistics, or effect sizes. The authors concluded that creatine monohydrate remains the only creatine form supported by substantial evidence for bioavailability, safety, and efficacy, and that it is the primary form approved by regulatory bodies and recommended by professional organizations. Marketed alternative forms were reported to be generally less bioavailable, less effective in comparative trials, more expensive, or insufficiently studied.
Why it matters
This paper clarifies that novel and marketed alternative forms of creatine do not have superior evidence over standard creatine monohydrate for efficacy or safety.
Limits
The abstract describes a narrative critical review rather than a systematic review or meta-analysis. No quantitative metrics, search strategies, or study sample sizes are reported in the abstract.
Cited by
- supports No newly marketed form of creatine, such as creatine hydrochloride, has been proven to be safer or more effective than creatine monohydrate.