R Huber1, M Emerich, M Braeunig. 1. Center for Complementqry Medicine, Department of Environmental Health Sciences, University Hospital Freiburg, Breisacher Str. 115b, D-79106 Freiburg, Germany. roman.huber@uniklinik-freiburg.de
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Cupping is a traditional method for treating pain which is investigated nowadays in clinical studies. Because the methods for producing the vacuum vary considerably we tested their reproducibility. METHODS: In a first set of experiments (study 1) four methods for producing the vacuum (lighter flame 2 cm (LF1), lighter flame 4 cm (LF2), alcohol flame (AF) and mechanical suction with a balloon (BA)) have been compared in 50 trials each. The cupping glass was prepared with an outlet and stop-cock, the vacuum was measured with a pressure-gauge after the cup was set to a soft rubber pad. In a second series of experiments (study 2) we investigated the stability of pressures in 20 consecutive trials in two experienced cupping practitioners and ten beginners using method AF. RESULTS: In study 1 all four methods yielded consistent pressures. Large differences in magnitude were, however, observed between methods (mean pressures -200±30 hPa with LF1, -310±30 hPa with LF2, -560±30 hPa with AF, and -270±16 hPa with BA). With method BA the standard deviation was reduced by a factor 2 compared to the flame methods. In study 2 beginners had considerably more difficulty obtaining a stable pressure yield than advanced cupping practitioners, showing a distinct learning curve before reaching expertise levels after about 10-20 trials. CONCLUSIONS: Cupping is reproducible if the exact method is described in detail. Mechanical suction with a balloon has the best reproducibility. Beginners need at least 10-20 trials to produce stable pressures.
OBJECTIVES: Cupping is a traditional method for treating pain which is investigated nowadays in clinical studies. Because the methods for producing the vacuum vary considerably we tested their reproducibility. METHODS: In a first set of experiments (study 1) four methods for producing the vacuum (lighter flame 2 cm (LF1), lighter flame 4 cm (LF2), alcohol flame (AF) and mechanical suction with a balloon (BA)) have been compared in 50 trials each. The cupping glass was prepared with an outlet and stop-cock, the vacuum was measured with a pressure-gauge after the cup was set to a soft rubber pad. In a second series of experiments (study 2) we investigated the stability of pressures in 20 consecutive trials in two experienced cupping practitioners and ten beginners using method AF. RESULTS: In study 1 all four methods yielded consistent pressures. Large differences in magnitude were, however, observed between methods (mean pressures -200±30 hPa with LF1, -310±30 hPa with LF2, -560±30 hPa with AF, and -270±16 hPa with BA). With method BA the standard deviation was reduced by a factor 2 compared to the flame methods. In study 2 beginners had considerably more difficulty obtaining a stable pressure yield than advanced cupping practitioners, showing a distinct learning curve before reaching expertise levels after about 10-20 trials. CONCLUSIONS: Cupping is reproducible if the exact method is described in detail. Mechanical suction with a balloon has the best reproducibility. Beginners need at least 10-20 trials to produce stable pressures.
Authors: Hussam Baghdadi; Nada Abdel-Aziz; Nagwa Sayed Ahmed; Hany Salah Mahmoud; Ayman Barghash; Abdullah Nasrat; Manal Mohamed Helmy Nabo; Salah Mohamed El Sayed Journal: Int J Health Sci (Qassim) Date: 2015-04
Authors: Salah Mohamed El Sayed; Hussam Baghdadi; Ashraf Abou-Taleb; Hany Salah Mahmoud; Reham A Maria; Nagwa S Ahmed; Manal Mohamed Helmy Nabo Journal: J Blood Med Date: 2014-10-30
Authors: Ann-Kathrin Lederer; Christian Maly; Tomas Weinert; Roman Huber Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med Date: 2019-12-21 Impact factor: 2.629
Authors: Manuel Rodríguez-Huguet; Jorge Góngora-Rodríguez; Maria Jesus Vinolo-Gil; Francisco Javier Martín-Vega; Rocío Martín-Valero; Daniel Rodríguez-Almagro Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-04-02 Impact factor: 4.241