Primary Research · 2018
Effects of creatine supplementation on cognitive function of healthy individuals: a systematic review of 6 randomized controlled trials
Avgerinos et al. · Experimental Gerontology, 2018
Key finding
Meta-analysis of 6 RCTs showing creatine improved short-term memory and reasoning in healthy adults, especially under stress/sleep deprivation.
Abstract
PubMed · PMID 29704637 →BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Creatine is a supplement used by sportsmen to increase athletic performance by improving energy supply to muscle tissues. It is also an essential brain compound and some hypothesize that it aids cognition by improving energy supply and neuroprotection. The aim of this systematic review is to investigate the effects of oral creatine administration on cognitive function in healthy individuals. METHODS: A search of multiple electronic databases was performed for the identification of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) examining the cognitive effects of oral creatine supplementation in healthy individuals. RESULTS: Six studies (281 individuals) met our inclusion criteria. Generally, there was evidence that short term memory and intelligence/reasoning may be improved by creatine administration. Regarding other cognitive domains, such as long-term memory, spatial memory, memory scanning, attention, executive function, response inhibition, word fluency, reaction time and mental fatigue, the results were conflicting. Performance on cognitive tasks stayed unchanged in young individuals. Vegetarians responded better than meat-eaters in memory tasks but for other cognitive domains no differences were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Oral creatine administration may improve short-term memory and intelligence/reasoning of healthy individuals but its effect on other cognitive domains remains unclear. Findings suggest potential benefit for aging and stressed individuals. Since creatine is safe, future studies should include larger sample sizes. It is imperative that creatine should be tested on patients with dementias or cognitive impairment.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Abstract sourced from PubMed, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine. Displayed in the authors’ own words for context; our critique is in the sections below.
Read the full paper
Cited in 6 guides
Guide
Longevity Supplement Stack for Beginners 2026
Learn which longevity supplements are actually backed by human evidence. We tier NAD+, omega-3s, and more by clinical strength — no hype, no wasted money.
Roundup
Best Creatine Supplements 2026, Ranked by Evidence
We tested 8 creatine supplements on dose accuracy, purity, and Creapure sourcing. Find out which monohydrate products actually deliver 3–5g per serving.
Roundup
Best Supplements for ADHD and Focus: Evidence-Based Stack
Omega-3, L-theanine, and magnesium have real ADHD focus evidence. Here's how they work, what they don't replace, and stacking with or without stimulants.
Guide
Creatine for Women: The Complete Evidence-Based Guide (2026)
Women's creatine research through menopause, training, body composition, and mood. No bloating myths, no men's-magazine claims — just the evidence.
Guide
Creatine Loading Phase: Evidence-Based Guide 2026
Find out if creatine loading is worth it. We break down the saturation science, compare both protocols, and tell you which fits your timeline.
Guide
Nootropics Guide 2026: Ranked by Clinical Evidence
Learn which nootropics actually work for focus and cognition. Tiered by human RCT data — from caffeine + L-theanine to lion’s mane — with doses, red flags, and stack advice.
How to read a study like this
The same questions worth asking about any research paper, not just this one. Worth a minute even if you trust the grade.
Who was studied, and do you resemble them?
Supplement effects often depend on baseline status. Vitamin D helps people who are deficient; iron helps people who are anemic. A result in people unlike you may not apply to you.
What was measured, and does it matter in daily life?
A study that shows a blood marker moved isn't the same as a study that shows people felt or functioned better. Ask what the outcome means in practice.
How large was the effect — not just whether it was significant.
'Statistically significant' only means the effect is unlikely to be zero. It doesn't tell you the effect is large enough to notice. Look for effect sizes, not just p-values.
Who paid for the trial, and what did they stand to gain?
Industry-funded trials are several times more likely to report positive results than independent ones. It's not usually fraud — it's subtle design and reporting choices. Weight accordingly.
Has anyone else replicated this?
Single positive trials are hypotheses. Replication by independent groups is what turns a hypothesis into reliable evidence. If the only positive trial is the one you're reading, wait.
Does the dose in the trial match what's being sold?
Supplement marketing routinely cites trials that used 5–10× the dose in the product. If the effective dose was 2 g/day and the capsule has 200 mg, expect roughly no effect.
About this page
Formulate maintains a registry of clinical studies cited across its guides and evidence grades. This page links the study metadata to the content that cites it — one canonical entry per landmark study.
The full citation chain is public so readers can verify claims without hunting through individual guide pages. Browse all cited studies →
Note: Study summaries on this page are editorial interpretations of the research. Always consult the primary source before drawing clinical conclusions.