Cupping is when a healthcare provider uses cups that provide suction to an area of the body. The effect of cupping includes promotion of the skin’s blood flow, changing the skin’s biomechanical properties, increasing pain thresholds, improving local anaerobic metabolism, reducing inflammation, and modulating the cellular immune system. ` Aboushanab, T. Cupping Therapy: An Overview from a Modern Medicine Perspective. Journal of Acupuncture and Meridian Studies. 2018;11(3):83-87.
Effect of Dry Cupping Therapy on Pain and Functional Disability in Persistent Non-Specific Low Back Pain: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial
J Acupunct Meridian Stud. 2021 Dec 31;14(6):219-230. doi: 10.51507/j.jams.2021.14.6.219.
Marianna de Melo Salemi 1, Vanessa Maria da Silva Alves Gomes 1, Laylla Marjorye Rebouças Bezerra 1, Thania Maion de Souza Melo 1, Geisa Guimarães de Alencar 1, Iracema Hermes Pires de Mélo Montenegro 2, Alessandra Paula de Melo Calado
Abstract
Background: Cupping therapy is used to treat musculoskeletal conditions, including low back pain.
Objectives: The study assessed the effects of dry cupping on pain and functional disability from persistent nonspecific low back pain.
Methods: This was a randomized controlled trial, where participants were allocated to a cupping therapy (n = 19) or sham (n = 18) group, for five 10-minute sessions of cupping therapy, twice a week, to stimulate the acupoints related to low back pain (GV4, BL23, BL24, BL25, and BL30, BL40 and BL58) and emotional aspects (HT3 and ST36). All participants were assessed at baseline, post-treatment and follow up (a finalization period of four weeks) using a visual analogue scale (VAS) and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Groups were compared using the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and the effect size was calculated using Cohen̓s d.
Results: The cupping therapy group presented a lower mean VAS when compared to the sham, at post-treatment (mean difference: -2.36; standard error [SE]: 0.58; p < 0.001; “large” effect size: -0.94) and follow up (mean difference: -1.71; SE: 0.81; p < 0.042; ‘large’ effect size: -0.83). The cupping therapy group presented a lower mean ODI when compared to the sham post-treatment (mean difference: -4.68; SE: 1.85; p: 0.017; ‘large’ effect size: -0.87), although in follow-up, there was no difference between the groups (mean difference: 4.16; SE: 2.97; p: 0.17; “medium” effect size: -0.70).
Conclusion: Dry cupping was more effective in improving pain and functional disability in people with persistent nonspecific low back pain when compared to the sham.