↓ Skip to main content

A buffered form of creatine does not promote greater changes in muscle creatine content, body composition, or training adaptations than creatine monohydrate

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, April 2022
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 (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
10 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
185 X users
patent
1 patent
facebook
55 Facebook pages
googleplus
3 Google+ users
video
22 YouTube creators

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
183 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
A buffered form of creatine does not promote greater changes in muscle creatine content, body composition, or training adaptations than creatine monohydrate
Published in
Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, April 2022
DOI 10.1186/1550-2783-9-43
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrew R Jagim, Jonathan M Oliver, Adam Sanchez, Elfego Galvan, James Fluckey, Steven Riechman, Michael Greenwood, Katherine Kelly, Cynthia Meininger, Christopher Rasmussen, Richard B Kreider

Abstract

Creatine monohydrate (CrM) has been consistently reported to increase muscle creatine content and improve high-intensity exercise capacity. However, a number of different forms of creatine have been purported to be more efficacious than CrM. The purpose of this study was to determine if a buffered creatine monohydrate (KA) that has been purported to promote greater creatine retention and training adaptations with fewer side effects at lower doses is more efficacious than CrM supplementation in resistance-trained individuals.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 185 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 183 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 182 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 37 20%
Student > Bachelor 35 19%
Other 14 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 7%
Researcher 10 5%
Other 42 23%
Unknown 32 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 63 34%
Medicine and Dentistry 19 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 4%
Other 27 15%
Unknown 38 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 262. 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 30 March 2024.
All research outputs
#141,123
of 25,708,267 outputs
Outputs from Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition
#55
of 950 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,541
of 449,254 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition
#54
of 852 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,708,267 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 950 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 64.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 449,254 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 852 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 93% of its contemporaries.