↓ Skip to main content

Creatine supplementation and resistance training in vulnerable older women: A randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial

Overview of attention for article published in Experimental Gerontology, February 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
45 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
74 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
397 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Creatine supplementation and resistance training in vulnerable older women: A randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial
Published in
Experimental Gerontology, February 2014
DOI 10.1016/j.exger.2014.02.003
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bruno Gualano, André Regis Macedo, Christiano Robles Rodrigues Alves, Hamilton Roschel, Fabiana Braga Benatti, Liliam Takayama, Ana Lucia de Sá Pinto, Fernanda Rodrigues Lima, Rosa Maria Rodrigues Pereira

Abstract

This study aimed to examine the efficacy of creatine supplementation, associated or not with resistance training, in vulnerable older women. A 24-week, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial was performed. Sixty subjects were assigned to compose the following groups: placebo (PL), creatine supplementation (CR), placebo with resistance training (PL+RT), and creatine supplementation with resistance training (CR+RT). The subjects were assessed at baseline and after 24weeks. The primary outcome was muscle strength, as assessed by one-repetition maximum (1-RM) tests. Secondary outcomes included appendicular lean mass, bone mass, biochemical bone markers, and physical function tests. The changes in 1-RM leg press were significantly greater in the CR+RT group (+19.9%) than in the PL (+2.4%) and the CR groups (+3.7%), but not than in the PL+RT group (+15%) (p=0.002, p=0.002, and p=0.357, respectively). The CR+RT group showed superior gains in 1-RM bench press (+10%) when compared with all the other groups (p≤0.05). The CR+RT group (+1.31%) showed greater appendicular lean mass accrual than the PL (-1.2%), the CR (+0.3%), and the PL+RT groups (-0.2%) (p≤0.05). The CR and the PL+RT groups experienced comparable gains in appendicular lean mass (p=0.62), but superior to those seen in the PL group. Changes in fat mass, bone mass and serum bone markers did not significantly differ between the groups (p>0.05). In conclusion, creatine supplementation combined with resistance training improved appendicular lean mass and muscle function, but not bone mass, in older vulnerable women. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01472393.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 45 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 397 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 390 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 57 14%
Student > Master 55 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 38 10%
Researcher 32 8%
Student > Postgraduate 26 7%
Other 62 16%
Unknown 127 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 78 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 57 14%
Sports and Recreations 50 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 23 6%
Unspecified 12 3%
Other 38 10%
Unknown 139 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 39. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 January 2024.
All research outputs
#1,051,848
of 25,595,500 outputs
Outputs from Experimental Gerontology
#123
of 2,809 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,863
of 330,809 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Experimental Gerontology
#3
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,595,500 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,809 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 330,809 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.