Creatine supplementation for patients with COPD receiving pulmonary rehabilitation: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Creatine improves muscle strength in exercising healthy individuals, and in patients with neuromuscular disease and heart failure. The aim of this study was to assess whether creatine supplementation improves pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) outcomes in patients with COPD. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed of randomized controlled trials published between January 1966 and February 2009 that evaluated the effect of creatine compared with placebo on exercise capacity, muscle strength and health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) in patients undergoing PR for COPD. The pooled estimates were expressed as mean differences (MD) or standardized mean differences (SMD). RESULTS: Four randomized controlled trials that included 151 patients were identified. There was no effect of creatine supplementation on exercise capacity (SMD -0.01, 95% CI: -0.42 to 0.22, n = 151). Creatine supplementation did not improve lower extremity muscle strength (SMD 0.03, 95% CI: -0.55 to 0.61, n = 140) or upper limb muscular strength (SMD 0.02, 95% CI: -0.33 to 0.38, n = 128) compared with placebo. Two studies (n = 48) assessed quality of life using the St. George's Respiratory Disease Questionnaire. There were no differences in HR-QoL according to domain or total scores. Overall, creatine appeared to be safe and was well tolerated. Quality assessment of the studies showed important limitations. CONCLUSIONS: Creatine supplementation does not improve exercise capacity, muscle strength or HR-QoL in patients with COPD receiving PR. However, important limitations were identified in the quality of the available evidence, suggesting that further research is required in this area.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.025 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".