Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.
| Effect of dry cupping therapy on pain and functional disability in persistent non-specific low back pain: a randomized controlled clinical trial |
| de Melo Salemi M, da Silva Alves Gomes VM, Bezerra LMR, de Souza Melo TM, de Alencar GG, de Melo Montenegro IHP, de Melo Calado AP, Montenegro EJN, de Siqueira GR |
| Journal of Acupuncture and Meridian Studies 2021 Dec;14(6):219-230 |
| clinical trial |
| 8/10 [Eligibility criteria: No; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: Yes; Baseline comparability: Yes; Blind subjects: Yes; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: Yes; Adequate follow-up: Yes; Intention-to-treat analysis: No; Between-group comparisons: Yes; Point estimates and variability: Yes. Note: Eligibility criteria item does not contribute to total score] *This score has been confirmed* |
|
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 Cohen ??s 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.
|