Context:The use of creatine as a dietary supplement has become increasingly popular over the past several decades. Despite the popularity of creatine, questions remain with regard to dosing, effects on sports performance, and safety.Evidence Acquisition:PubMed was searched for articles published between 1980 and January 2017 using the terms creatine, creatine supplementation, sports performance, and dietary supplements. An additional Google search was performed to capture National Collegiate Athletic Association–specific creatine usage data and US dietary supplement and creatine sales.Study Design:Clinical review.Level of Evidence:Level 4.Results:Short-term use of creatine is considered safe and without significant adverse effects, although caution should be advised as the number of long-term studies is limited. Suggested dosing is variable, with many different regimens showing benefits. The safety of creatine supplementation has not been studied in children and adolescents. Currently, the scientific literature best supports creatine supplementation for increased performance in short-duration, maximal-intensity resistance training.Conclusion:While creatine appears to be safe and effective for particular settings, whether creatine supplementation leads to improved performance on the field of play remains unknown.

Office-based ultrasonography has become increasingly available in many settings, and its use to guide joint and soft tissue injections has increased. Numerous studies have been conducted to evaluate the use of ultrasound-guided injections over traditional landmark-guided injections, with a rapid growth in the literature over the past few years. A comprehensive review of the literature was conducted to demonstrate increased accuracy of ultrasound-guided injections regardless of anatomic location. In the upper extremity, ultrasound-guided injections have been shown to provide superior benefit to landmark-guided injections at the glenohumeral joint, the subacromial space, the biceps tendon sheath, and the joints of the hand and wrist. Ultrasound-guided injections of the acromioclavicular and the elbow joints have not been shown to be more efficacious. In the lower extremity, ultrasound-guided injections at the knee, ankle, and foot have superior efficacy to landmark-guided injections. Conclusive evidence is not available regarding improved efficacy of ultrasound-guided injections of the hip, although landmark-guided injection is performed less commonly at the hip joint. Ultrasound-guided injections are overall more accurate than landmark-guided injections. While current studies indicate that ultrasound guidance improves efficacy and cost-effectiveness of many injections, these studies are limited and more research is needed.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract