Cognitive and Emotional Aspects of Cupping Therapy

The effectiveness of cupping therapy on low back pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized control trials

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to investigate the effectiveness of cupping therapy on low back pain (LBP).

METHODS

Medline, Embase, Scopus and WANFANG databases were searched for relevant cupping RCTs on low back pain articles up to 2023. A complementary search was manually made on 27 September for update screening. Full-text English and Chinese articles on all ethnic adults with LBP of cupping management were included in this study. Studies looking at acute low back pain only were excluded. Two independent reviewers screened and extracted data, with any disagreement resolved through consensus by a third reviewer. The methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated independently by two reviewers using an adapted tool. Change-from-baseline outcomes were treated as continuous variables and calculated according to the Cochrane Handbook. Data were extracted and pooled into the meta-analysis by Review Manager software (version 5.4, Nordic Cochrane Centre).

RESULTS

Eleven trials involving 921 participants were included. Five studies were assessed as being at low risk of bias, and six studies were of acceptable quality. High-quality evidence demonstrated cupping significantly improves pain at 2-8 weeks endpoint intervention (d=1.09, 95% CI: [0.35-1.83], p = 0.004). There was no continuous pain improvement observed at one month (d=0.11, 95% CI: [-1.02-1.23], p = 0.85) and 3-6 months (d=0.39, 95% CI: [-0.09-0.87], p = 0.11). Dry cupping did not improve pain (d=1.06, 95% CI: [-0.34, 2.45], p = 0.14) compared with wet cupping (d=1.5, 95% CI: [0.39-2.6], p = 0.008) at the endpoint intervention. There was no evidence indicating the association between pain reduction and different types of cupping (p = 0.2). Moderate- to low-quality evidence showed that cupping did not reduce chronic low back pain (d=0.74, 95% CI: [-0.67-2.15], p = 0.30) and non-specific chronic low back pain (d=0.27, 95% CI: [-1.69-2.24], p = 0.78) at the endpoint intervention. Cupping on acupoints showed a significant improvement in pain (d=1.29, 95% CI: [0.63-1.94], p < 0.01) compared with the lower back area (d=0.35, 95% CI: [-0.29-0.99], p = 0.29). A potential association between pain reduction and different cupping locations (p = 0.05) was found. Meta-analysis showed a significant effect on pain improvement compared to medication therapy (n = 8; d=1.8 [95% CI: 1.22 - 2.39], p < 0.001) and usual care (n = 5; d=1.07 [95% CI: 0.21- 1.93], p = 0.01). Two studies demonstrated that cupping significantly mediated sensory and emotional pain immediately, after 24 h, and 2 weeks post-intervention (d= 5.49, 95% CI [4.13-6.84], p < 0.001). Moderate evidence suggested that cupping improved disability at the 1-6 months follow-up (d=0.67, 95% CI: [0.06-1.28], p = 0.03). There was no immediate effect observed at the 2-8 weeks endpoint (d=0.40, 95% CI: [-0.51-1.30], p = 0.39). A high degree of heterogeneity was noted in the subgroup analysis (I2 >50%).

CONCLUSION

High- to moderate-quality evidence indicates that cupping significantly improves pain and disability. The effectiveness of cupping for LBP varies based on treatment durations, cupping types, treatment locations, and LBP classifications. Cupping demonstrated a superior and sustained effect on pain reduction compared with medication and usual care. The notable heterogeneity among studies raises concerns about the certainty of these findings. Further research should be designed with a standardized cupping manipulation that specifies treatment sessions, frequency, cupping types, and treatment locations. The actual therapeutic effects of cupping could be confirmed by using objective pain assessments. Studies with at least six- to twelve-month follow-ups are needed to investigate the long-term efficacy of cupping in managing LBP.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This systematic review was initially registered on PROSPERO with registration code: CRD42021271245 on 08 September 2021.

Attentional Bias Toward Cupping Therapy Marks: An Eye-Tracking Study

Objective

Despite the many medical benefits, cupping therapy can be difficult for some patients due to unpleasant marks on the skin. As patients are afraid of the potential painful sensation from cupping therapy, the skin reactions might produce vigilance for treatment as pain-related information. We investigated whether individuals show negative emotions and attentional bias toward pain-related residual marks from cupping therapy on the body using an eye-tracking method.

Methods

Fifty pain-free volunteers were presented with four different kinds of visual stimulation, such as the back or face region and with or without cupping marks on the skin. A cupping and a control image were presented on one screen with one image on the left side of the screen and the other on the right (locations of the images were counterbalanced across participants). The eye movements of the participants were measured while they viewed the pictures. They completed the Empathy Quotient questionnaire before the experiment and evaluated the unpleasantness level to each image during the task.

Results

Images of the back and face with cupping marks were rated significantly more unpleasant and showed a significant attentional bias (significantly longer percentage fixation time) than the control images (attentional bias score: Back + cupping: 48.1 ± 2.8%; Back: -0.7 ± 3.4%; Face + cupping: 34.5 ± 2.5%; Face: -2.2 ± 2.9%). Individuals with greater empathy exhibited significantly higher unpleasantness (r = 0.323, p < 0.05) and less attentional bias (r = -0.279, p < 0.05) to the images with cupping marks.

Conclusion

The skin reactions caused by cupping therapy evoked negative emotional responses as well as attentional bias to the reaction sites. Our findings suggest that the emotional and attentional responses to cupping therapy might reflect potential reluctance to this therapy.