Study analysis · Principles and Practice of Clinical Research Journal · 2023
Can a cheap, safe supplement boost teenage brains? A new study plans to find out.
Scientists are testing if daily creatine supplements can make teenagers with low grades think better.
Overview
What the study found
The study in plain English — the bottom line, every takeaway we extracted, and what to do with them.
In simple terms
This study is like a recipe for a big test. It tells us exactly how to check if taking creatine helps teenagers think better. But we haven't actually done the test yet, so we can't say if it works. The results will come later.
What’s the bottom line?
This is a plan for a study that will give some teenagers (15-17 years old) who have low school grades either a creatine supplement or a placebo (fake supplement) every day for 12 weeks. They will test their thinking skills before and after to see if creatine helps.
How strong is this study?
The recipe is very careful. They plan to split kids into two groups by chance, and no one knows who gets the real creatine or a fake one. That's like a blind taste test – it helps make sure the answer is fair. If they follow the recipe well, we can trust the results a lot.
0 / 100
- COI disclosureconflicts of interest not disclosed
- Data availabilitydata not shared
- Code availabilitycode not shared
86 / 100
- Randomization+20/20
- Blinding+15/15
- Control group+15/15
- Sample size (n=116)+8.8/20
- Follow-up+10/10
100 / 100
77 / 100
- P-values+15/15
- Effect size+20/20
- Confidence intervals+15/15
- Pre-registrationnot pre-registered
Each component is scored out of 100 and then capped by the study design — a case series cannot reach the ceiling a randomised trial can, however well it is reported.
Where it sits
RCT reviewsReviews of RCTs (Meta-analyses)
Max 100Randomized TrialsRandomized Trials
Max 90Reviews of Cohort StudiesReviews of Cohort Studies
Max 85Cohort StudiesCohort Studies
Max 72Reviews of Case-Control StudiesReviews of Case-Control Studies
Max 63Case-Control StudiesCase-Control Studies
Max 58Cross-Sectional & Case SeriesCross-Sectional & Case Series
Max 50Expert OpinionExpert Opinion
Max 569 / 100
Probability of being correct
Participants are randomly assigned to treatment or control groups, minimizing bias. The gold standard for testing whether an intervention causes an effect.
This design can establish causation. This is a study protocol; actual results are not yet available. While an RCT design can establish causation if properly conducted, the conclusions are pending the trial's execution and results.
No Conflicts
No conflicts of interest identified
No conflicts of interest identified; the study is conducted by academic authors with no industry ties or funding disclosed.
The study protocol does not include a conflict of interest declaration or funding statement. All authors are affiliated with academic or clinical institutions. No industry sponsorship or author-industry relationships are reported.
Key takeaways
- 01
No results yet – the study hasn't been done.
- 02
They plan to test 116 teenagers and look for a difference in a test of intelligence (Raven's Matrices).
- 03
They expect that creatine might improve scores by at least 3 points compared to placebo.
- 04
A 3-point improvement on the Raven's test could move a student from the 50th to the 75th percentile, which is a meaningful gain.
- 05
But we don't know if it will happen.
Surprising findings
- No results yet – but the hypothesis is bold: creatine could boost fluid intelligence in underperforming teens.Creatine is typically associated with muscle growth, not brain function. The idea that it might help cognition in healthy adolescents goes against common perception.
Practical takeaways
Wait for results before rushing to give creatine to teens. If positive, a dose of ~7g/day (for 70kg teen) mixed in juice might be considered under medical guidance.
No results yet – this is only a protocol. Also, long-term safety in adolescents isn't fully established.
medium confidenceFor now, focus on evidence-based cognitive enhancers: sleep, exercise, and a balanced diet.
These are proven for general health but may not specifically help underperforming teens.
high confidenceWhy this study matters
The brain energy connection
Creatine helps produce ATP, the brain's main fuel. This study targets teens with below-average grades, hypothesizing that extra creatine might enhance cognitive function. The primary test is Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices (RSPM), a measure of fluid intelligence.
It's a low-cost, safe intervention that could potentially help millions of struggling students.
A rigorous, triple-blind trial
The CREATE trial is phase-II, randomized, triple-blind (participants, staff, assessors all blinded), with 116 teens aged 15-17. They'll take 0.1 g/kg/day of creatine or placebo for 12 weeks, mixed in juice. The study is powered to detect a 3-point RSPM difference.
Most supplement studies are poorly designed; this one meets high methodological standards, increasing confidence in results.
Why these teens?
Participants have grades below the 50th percentile. The researchers suspect this group might have more room for improvement than high achievers. If positive, it could reshape educational interventions.
It challenges the assumption that supplements only help the already healthy; here the focus is on those who need it most.
Beyond intelligence: multiple measures
Secondary outcomes include processing speed (SpaceCode game), working memory (SpaceMatrix), non-visual memory (backward digit span), and lean mass. This gives a full picture of creatine's effects.
It's not just about IQ; these skills are crucial for school and daily life.
Want the whole report?
Detailed mode opens the full scientific breakdown — every score component, the methodology, conflicts of interest, the evidence analysis behind each claim, and the raw study data.
Overview
What the study found
The study in plain English — the bottom line, every takeaway we extracted, and what to do with them.
Not medical advice. For informational purposes only. Always consult a healthcare professional. Terms
This is a plan for a study that will give some teenagers (15-17 years old) who have low school grades either a creatine supplement or a placebo (fake supplement) every day for 12 weeks. They will test their thinking skills before and after to see if creatine helps.
Research results
No results yet – the study hasn't been done. They plan to test 116 teenagers and look for a difference in a test of intelligence (Raven's Matrices). They expect that creatine might improve scores by at least 3 points compared to placebo.
What this means - more context
A 3-point improvement on the Raven's test could move a student from the 50th to the 75th percentile, which is a meaningful gain. But we don't know if it will happen.
To assess whether 12 weeks of daily creatine supplementation (0.1 g/kg/day) improves cognitive performance in 15-17-year-old students with average school grades below the 50th percentile.
This is a phase-II, triple-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial protocol. It will enroll 116 adolescents below the 50th percentile in grades. Primary outcome: change in Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices (RSPM) score from baseline to week 12. Secondary outcomes include processing speed, working memory, non-visual memory, lean mass, and safety. The study aims to detect a 3-point RSPM difference with 90% power. Results are not yet available.
Methods Used
Randomized, triple-blind, parallel-group, superiority trial. 116 adolescents (15-17 years) with grades below 50th percentile. Intervention: creatine monohydrate 0.1 g/kg/day mixed in juice vs placebo for 12 weeks. Primary outcome: RSPM change. Secondary outcomes: SpaceCode, SpaceMatrix, backward digit span, lean mass by BIA, serum creatinine.
Main Finding
No results available (protocol only). The hypothesized effect is a ≥3-point improvement in RSPM with creatine vs placebo. The study is designed to detect this difference.
Confidence Level
Low (protocol only; no results yet). The study design is robust (randomized, triple-blind, powered), but outcomes are unknown.
Study Flags
Red Flags
- •Single-center study may limit generalizability
- •No interim analysis planned
- •Adherence relies on self-report and observed consumption, potential for non-compliance
Surprising Findings
No results yet – but the hypothesis is bold: creatine could boost fluid intelligence in underperforming teens.
Creatine is typically associated with muscle growth, not brain function. The idea that it might help cognition in healthy adolescents goes against common perception.
Practical Takeaways
Wait for results before rushing to give creatine to teens. If positive, a dose of ~7g/day (for 70kg teen) mixed in juice might be considered under medical guidance.
RCT reviewsReviews of RCTs (Meta-analyses)
Max 100Randomized TrialsRandomized Trials
Max 90Reviews of Cohort StudiesReviews of Cohort Studies
Max 85Cohort StudiesCohort Studies
Max 72Reviews of Case-Control StudiesReviews of Case-Control Studies
Max 63Case-Control StudiesCase-Control Studies
Max 58Cross-Sectional & Case SeriesCross-Sectional & Case Series
Max 50Expert OpinionExpert Opinion
Max 569 / 100
Probability of being correct
Participants are randomly assigned to treatment or control groups, minimizing bias. The gold standard for testing whether an intervention causes an effect.
Human RCT
Subject
Moderate probability
on the GRADE evidence scale
This study is like a recipe for a big test. It tells us exactly how to check if taking creatine helps teenagers think better. But we haven't actually done the test yet, so we can't say if it works. The results will come later.
The study has a COI section but no disclosure was found. A small penalty has been applied.
Strengths
- Randomized allocation reduces selection bias.
- Triple-blinding minimizes performance, detection, and attrition biases.
- Placebo-controlled to isolate treatment effect.
Weaknesses
- Protocol not yet executed; actual adherence, blinding, and data quality unknown.
- Single center may limit external validity.
- No interim analysis planned, which could identify early harm or futility.
Methodology
Evidence Keywords
Statistical Reporting
Not medical advice. For informational purposes only. Always consult a healthcare professional. Terms
This is a plan for a study that will give some teenagers (15-17 years old) who have low school grades either a creatine supplement or a placebo (fake supplement) every day for 12 weeks. They will test their thinking skills before and after to see if creatine helps.
Research results
No results yet – the study hasn't been done. They plan to test 116 teenagers and look for a difference in a test of intelligence (Raven's Matrices). They expect that creatine might improve scores by at least 3 points compared to placebo.
What this means - more context
A 3-point improvement on the Raven's test could move a student from the 50th to the 75th percentile, which is a meaningful gain. But we don't know if it will happen.
To assess whether 12 weeks of daily creatine supplementation (0.1 g/kg/day) improves cognitive performance in 15-17-year-old students with average school grades below the 50th percentile.
This is a phase-II, triple-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial protocol. It will enroll 116 adolescents below the 50th percentile in grades. Primary outcome: change in Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices (RSPM) score from baseline to week 12. Secondary outcomes include processing speed, working memory, non-visual memory, lean mass, and safety. The study aims to detect a 3-point RSPM difference with 90% power. Results are not yet available.
Methods Used
Randomized, triple-blind, parallel-group, superiority trial. 116 adolescents (15-17 years) with grades below 50th percentile. Intervention: creatine monohydrate 0.1 g/kg/day mixed in juice vs placebo for 12 weeks. Primary outcome: RSPM change. Secondary outcomes: SpaceCode, SpaceMatrix, backward digit span, lean mass by BIA, serum creatinine.
Main Finding
No results available (protocol only). The hypothesized effect is a ≥3-point improvement in RSPM with creatine vs placebo. The study is designed to detect this difference.
Confidence Level
Low (protocol only; no results yet). The study design is robust (randomized, triple-blind, powered), but outcomes are unknown.
Study Flags
Red Flags
- •Single-center study may limit generalizability
- •No interim analysis planned
- •Adherence relies on self-report and observed consumption, potential for non-compliance
Surprising Findings
No results yet – but the hypothesis is bold: creatine could boost fluid intelligence in underperforming teens.
Creatine is typically associated with muscle growth, not brain function. The idea that it might help cognition in healthy adolescents goes against common perception.
Practical Takeaways
Wait for results before rushing to give creatine to teens. If positive, a dose of ~7g/day (for 70kg teen) mixed in juice might be considered under medical guidance.
RCT reviewsReviews of RCTs (Meta-analyses)
Max 100Randomized TrialsRandomized Trials
Max 90Reviews of Cohort StudiesReviews of Cohort Studies
Max 85Cohort StudiesCohort Studies
Max 72Reviews of Case-Control StudiesReviews of Case-Control Studies
Max 63Case-Control StudiesCase-Control Studies
Max 58Cross-Sectional & Case SeriesCross-Sectional & Case Series
Max 50Expert OpinionExpert Opinion
Max 569 / 100
Probability of being correct
Participants are randomly assigned to treatment or control groups, minimizing bias. The gold standard for testing whether an intervention causes an effect.
Human RCT
Subject
Moderate probability
on the GRADE evidence scale
This study is like a recipe for a big test. It tells us exactly how to check if taking creatine helps teenagers think better. But we haven't actually done the test yet, so we can't say if it works. The results will come later.
The study has a COI section but no disclosure was found. A small penalty has been applied.
Strengths
- Randomized allocation reduces selection bias.
- Triple-blinding minimizes performance, detection, and attrition biases.
- Placebo-controlled to isolate treatment effect.
Weaknesses
- Protocol not yet executed; actual adherence, blinding, and data quality unknown.
- Single center may limit external validity.
- No interim analysis planned, which could identify early harm or futility.
Methodology
Evidence Keywords
Statistical Reporting
Scoring
How strong is this study?
The recipe is very careful. They plan to split kids into two groups by chance, and no one knows who gets the real creatine or a fake one. That's like a blind taste test – it helps make sure the answer is fair. If they follow the recipe well, we can trust the results a lot.
0 / 100
- COI disclosureconflicts of interest not disclosed
- Data availabilitydata not shared
- Code availabilitycode not shared
86 / 100
- Randomization+20/20
- Blinding+15/15
- Control group+15/15
- Sample size (n=116)+8.8/20
- Follow-up+10/10
100 / 100
77 / 100
- P-values+15/15
- Effect size+20/20
- Confidence intervals+15/15
- Pre-registrationnot pre-registered
Each component is scored out of 100 and then capped by the study design — a case series cannot reach the ceiling a randomised trial can, however well it is reported.
Where it sits
RCT reviewsReviews of RCTs (Meta-analyses)
Max 100Randomized TrialsRandomized Trials
Max 90Reviews of Cohort StudiesReviews of Cohort Studies
Max 85Cohort StudiesCohort Studies
Max 72Reviews of Case-Control StudiesReviews of Case-Control Studies
Max 63Case-Control StudiesCase-Control Studies
Max 58Cross-Sectional & Case SeriesCross-Sectional & Case Series
Max 50Expert OpinionExpert Opinion
Max 569 / 100
Probability of being correct
Participants are randomly assigned to treatment or control groups, minimizing bias. The gold standard for testing whether an intervention causes an effect.
This design can establish causation. This is a study protocol; actual results are not yet available. While an RCT design can establish causation if properly conducted, the conclusions are pending the trial's execution and results.
No Conflicts
No conflicts of interest identified
No conflicts of interest identified; the study is conducted by academic authors with no industry ties or funding disclosed.
The study protocol does not include a conflict of interest declaration or funding statement. All authors are affiliated with academic or clinical institutions. No industry sponsorship or author-industry relationships are reported.