Tier 2 — strong

Methodological Approaches to Bioavailability of Oral Creatine in Randomized Controlled Trials: A Meta-Research Study

Viljemka Bučević Popović, Antonela Sovulj, Sanda Raić, Ivana Pezelj, Malgorzata M Bala, Livia Puljak
Nutrients 2026 18(16):2697

Bibliography

PubMed
PMID 42654277
PubMed Central
PMC13516631
Funding
Article-processing charge funded by a Faculty of Science, University of Split grant awarded to the lead author.
Competing interests
Authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Study snapshot

DesignMeta-research study of randomized controlled trial reports
ModelHuman
Sample357 reports corresponding to 343 randomized controlled trials
InterventionOral creatine formulations used as intervention or comparator
DurationTrials published 1994–2023
EndpointsCreatine formulation reporting; Bioavailability assessment; Formulation comparisons; Dosing comparability

What the study showed, in plain terms

2026 audit of how randomized creatine trials report formulation and bioavailability, useful for evaluating monohydrate-versus-alternative-form marketing claims.

Key findings

Creatine monohydrate was used in 80.2% of trial reports. Direct formulation comparisons and bioavailability measurements were rare and often methodologically limited, especially by non-equimolar dosing.

What this study can and cannot tell us

Meta-research evaluates the quality of trial reporting rather than directly estimating clinical efficacy of one creatine form over another.

Citation network

Articles citing this research paper

6 articles

Biohack Blueprint analyses that reference this study in their evidence base.

Editorial review

Reviewed by the Biohack Blueprint research team

Last verified