Cited by 4Muscle metabolism and nutritionBiochemical effects in animalsMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

Author’s reply: Letter to the Editor: Double counting due to inadequate statistics leads to false-positive findings in “Effects of creatine supplementation on memory in healthy individuals: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials”

Prokopidis, Konstantinos, Giannos, Panagiotis, Triantafyllidis, Konstantinos K, Kechagias, Konstantinos S, Forbes, Scott C, Candow, Darren G·2023·Nutrition Reviews

Abstract

In their Letter to the Editor, Eckert and Pascher1 correctly identified a flawed statistical analysis that warranted correction pertaining to the increased statistical power of our previous meta-analysis on creatine supplementation and memory performance.2 The inclusion of multiple memory-related outcomes from each study was accompanied with an increased number of the same participants (double counting). This could have altered the outcome estimates in the meta-analyses, indeed leading to an increased risk of false-positive findings. To address this, we have now derived the average effect size for studies presenting multiple memory performance outcomes (expressed as a composite score) through pooled means and standard deviations for each intervention group. After correction, our overall analysis showed that creatine monohydrate does not improve overall memory performance (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], –0.07, 0.46; I2 = 4%; P = 0.15) (Figure 1). Subgroup analyses revealed no differences of creatine monohydrate supplementation with low (≤5 g/day; SMD, 0.25; 95%CI, –0.14, 0.64; I2 = 0%; P = 0.21) or high (>5 g/d; SMD, 0.17; 95%CI, –0.34, 0.69; I2 = 50%; P = 0.51) doses (Figure 2A). However, although young adults (aged 11–31 years) did not benefit from creatine monohydrate (SMD, 0.02; 95%CI, –0.27, 0.31; I2 = 0%, P = 0.90), its effects were prominent in older adults (aged 66–76 years; SMD, 0.80; 95%CI, 0.25–1.34; I2 = 0%; P = 0.004) (Figure 2B), which was the main finding of our previous work.2 Furthermore, no changes were displayed regarding treatment duration (≤2 weeks: SMD, 0.16 [95%CI, –0.23, 0.56], I2 = 33%, P = 0.42; >2 weeks: SMD, 0.30 [95%CI, –0.17, 0.76], I2 = 0%, P = 0.21) (Figure 2C) nor sex (women and men: SMD, 0.18 [95%CI, –0.20, 0.56, I2 = 31%, P = 0.36; women: SMD, 0.42 [95%CI, –0.14, 0.98], I2 = 0%, P = 0.14; men: SMD, –0.11 [95%CI, –1.01, 0.79], P = 0.81) (Figure 2D). Our sensitivity analyses showed no effects of creatine monohydrate on memory performance in nonencapsulated form (SMD, 0.22; 95%CI, –0.08, 0.52; I2 = 16%; P = 0.15) (Figure 3A), normal (SMD, 0.29; 95%CI, –0.09, 0.68; I2 = 35%; P = 0.14) or stressed conditions (SMD, 0.03; 95%CI, –0.46, 0.52; I2 = 0%; P = 0.91) (Figure 3B), and participants lost to follow-up (<15%) (SMD, 0.28; 95%CI, –0.02, 0.59; I2 = 1%; P = 0.07) (Figure 3C).

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/nutrit/nuac111

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Prokopidis, K., Giannos, P., Triantafyllidis, K. K., Kechagias, K. S., Forbes, S. C., & Candow, D. G.
Affiliations
  • University of Liverpool (GB)
  • Imperial College London (GB)
  • Musgrove Park Hospital (GB)
  • Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • Brandon University (CA)
  • University of Regina (CA)
Corresponding author
Prokopidis, Konstantinos
Venue
Nutrition Reviews
Published
2023-01-16
Volume
81
Issue
11
Pages
1497-1500
ISSN
  • 0029-6643 (ISSN-L)
  • 1753-4887
OpenAlex
W4316466501
Cited by
4
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nutrition Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cell Biology › Muscle metabolism and nutrition
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Biochemical effects in animals
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
creatine monohydrate, memory performance, double counting, false positives, statistical power, older adults, dose comparison, treatment duration, healthy individuals, meta-analysis correction, standardized mean difference, subgroup analysis, young adults, dietary fiber intake, protein intake
MeSH terms
Systematic Reviews as Topic, Creatine, Health Status, Humans, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Dietary Supplements

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review