Update evidence of effectiveness on pain relieving of cupping therapy: a systematic review and Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Wang Yiying, Dong Shuai, L I Bo, Han Mei, Cao Huijuan
{"title":"Update evidence of effectiveness on pain relieving of cupping therapy: a systematic review and Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.","authors":"Wang Yiying, Dong Shuai, L I Bo, Han Mei, Cao Huijuan","doi":"10.19852/j.cnki.jtcm.2025.02.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To update the current best evidence on the effectiveness and safety of cupping therapy in pain management.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The protocol of this systematic review was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42021261308). An updated literature searching in 7 databases was conducted from January 2014 to January 2023. Two authors extracted data and assessed the risk of bias independently. Statistical analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4.1 software (Cochrane Collaboration, London, UK). Meta-analysis with a random effect model was conducted when there was no serious statistical heterogeneity among trials (<i>I</i>2≤75%). Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation was also conducted to assess the quality of evidence.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seventy-two trials with 5720 participants were included. All included trials were assessed as having high risk of bias. The majority of the included trials reported the benefit of cupping plus other therapy or cupping alone on improving cure rate (average risk ratio more than 1.15) and reducing visual analogue scale [average mean difference (<i>MD</i>) reduction 0.16 to 7.0 cm], improving quality of life, quality of sleep or other symptoms related to pain condition. And there was low/very low quality evidence that the incidence of adverse events in the cupping groups were lower than that in the control groups. Although the heterogeneity between studies and the methodological quality of the study itself lead to the low evidence strength of the current conclusions, the results of this study are a valuable supplement to the founding of previous review.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Cupping therapy alone or combined with other therapy was considered benefit in relieving pain, improving the quality of life, and increasing the cure rate of patients with pain conditions, though supported by the low quality of evidence. According to the limited evidence, cupping therapy seems to have less harm than drugs when treating pain conditions.</p>","PeriodicalId":94119,"journal":{"name":"Journal of traditional Chinese medicine = Chung i tsa chih ying wen pan","volume":"45 2","pages":"234-253"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11955767/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of traditional Chinese medicine = Chung i tsa chih ying wen pan","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.19852/j.cnki.jtcm.2025.02.002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To update the current best evidence on the effectiveness and safety of cupping therapy in pain management.

Methods: The protocol of this systematic review was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42021261308). An updated literature searching in 7 databases was conducted from January 2014 to January 2023. Two authors extracted data and assessed the risk of bias independently. Statistical analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4.1 software (Cochrane Collaboration, London, UK). Meta-analysis with a random effect model was conducted when there was no serious statistical heterogeneity among trials (I2≤75%). Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation was also conducted to assess the quality of evidence.

Results: Seventy-two trials with 5720 participants were included. All included trials were assessed as having high risk of bias. The majority of the included trials reported the benefit of cupping plus other therapy or cupping alone on improving cure rate (average risk ratio more than 1.15) and reducing visual analogue scale [average mean difference (MD) reduction 0.16 to 7.0 cm], improving quality of life, quality of sleep or other symptoms related to pain condition. And there was low/very low quality evidence that the incidence of adverse events in the cupping groups were lower than that in the control groups. Although the heterogeneity between studies and the methodological quality of the study itself lead to the low evidence strength of the current conclusions, the results of this study are a valuable supplement to the founding of previous review.

Conclusion: Cupping therapy alone or combined with other therapy was considered benefit in relieving pain, improving the quality of life, and increasing the cure rate of patients with pain conditions, though supported by the low quality of evidence. According to the limited evidence, cupping therapy seems to have less harm than drugs when treating pain conditions.

火罐治疗缓解疼痛有效性的最新证据:随机对照试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析。
目的:更新目前关于拔火罐治疗疼痛的有效性和安全性的最佳证据。方法:本系统评价的方案在PROSPERO注册(CRD42021261308)。2014年1月至2023年1月在7个数据库中更新文献检索。两位作者提取数据并独立评估偏倚风险。采用RevMan 5.4.1软件(Cochrane Collaboration, London, UK)进行统计分析。当试验间不存在严重的统计学异质性(I2≤75%)时,采用随机效应模型进行meta分析。还进行了建议评估、发展和评价的分级,以评估证据的质量。结果:纳入72项试验,5720名受试者。所有纳入的试验均被评估为具有高偏倚风险。大多数纳入的试验报告了拔罐加其他疗法或单独拔罐在提高治愈率(平均风险比大于1.15)和减少视觉模拟量表(平均平均差(MD)减少0.16至7.0 cm)、改善生活质量、睡眠质量或其他与疼痛状况相关的症状方面的益处。有低/极低质量的证据表明,拔罐组的不良事件发生率低于对照组。虽然研究之间的异质性和研究本身的方法学质量导致当前结论的证据强度较低,但本研究的结果是对先前综述的基础的有价值的补充。结论:单纯拔火罐治疗或联合其他治疗均有利于缓解疼痛,改善患者的生活质量,提高患者的治愈率,但证据质量较低。根据有限的证据,在治疗疼痛时,拔火罐疗法似乎比药物的危害要小。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信