Effect of Dry Cupping Therapy on Pain and Functional Disability in Persistent Non-Specific Low Back Pain: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

BackgroundCupping therapy is used to treat musculoskeletal conditions, including low back pain. ObjectivesThe study assessed the effects of dry cupping on pain and functional disability from persistent nonspecific low back pain. MethodsThis was a randomized controlled trial, where participants were...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of acupuncture and meridian studies 2021, 14(6), 74, pp.219-230
Hauptverfasser: Salemi, Marianna de Melo, Gomes, Vanessa Maria da Silva Alves, Bezerra, Laylla Marjorye Rebouças, Melo, Thania Maion de Souza, Alencar, Geisa Guimarães de, Montenegro, Iracema Hermes Pires de Mélo, Calado, Alessandra Paula de Melo, Montenegro, Eduardo José Nepomuceno, Siqueira, Gisela Rocha de
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:BackgroundCupping therapy is used to treat musculoskeletal conditions, including low back pain. ObjectivesThe study assessed the effects of dry cupping on pain and functional disability from persistent nonspecific low back pain. MethodsThis 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. ResultsThe 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). ConclusionDry cupping was more effective in improving pain and functional disability in people with persistent nonspecific low back pain when compared to the sham.
ISSN:2005-2901
2093-8152
DOI:10.51507/j.jams.2021.14.6.219