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”
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
It has been claimed that creatine supplementation is more likely to benefit older adults more than younger ones.
“It has been claimed that creatine supplementation is more likely to benefit older adults more than younger ones [7, 68, 69].”
From The effects of creatine supplementation on cognitive performance—a randomised controlled study (2023) · cites this paper as [69]
Cites
Prokopidis, K., Giannos, P., Triantafyllidis, K. K., Kechagias, K. S., Forbes, S. C., & Candow, D. G. (2023) · Nutrition Reviews · doi:10.1093/nutrit/nuac064 · Cited by 71 · see citing works
Self-citationEckert, I. D. C., & Pascher, E. (2023) · Nutrition Reviews · doi:10.1093/nutrit/nuac108 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The effects of creatine supplementation on cognitive performance—a randomised controlled study
Sandkühler, J. F., Kersting, X., Faust, A., Königs, E. K., Altman, G., Ettinger, U., Lux, S., Philipsen, A., Müller, H., & Brauner, J. (2023) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/s12916-023-03146-5 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
“In their meta-analysis on the effect of creatine on memory performance, Prokopidis et al. [68, 69] found no effect of sex.”
BackgroundMethod
- 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
- ORCID
- Venue
- Nutrition Reviews
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- 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