Hugo Jário Almeida Silva1, Germanna Medeiros Barbosa2, Rodrigo Scattone Silva1, Bruno T Saragiotto3, Jaine Maria Pontes Oliveira2, Yago Tavares Pinheiro1, Caio Alano Almeida Lins1, Marcelo Cardoso de Souza4. 1. Postgraduate Program in Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences of Trairi, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN), Santa Cruz, Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil. 2. Faculty of Health Sciences of Trairi, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN), Santa Cruz, Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil. 3. Masters and Doctoral Programs in Physical Therapy, Universidade Cidade de São Paulo (UNICID), São Paulo, Brazil. 4. Postgraduate Program in Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences of Trairi, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN), Santa Cruz, Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil. Electronic address: marcelocardoso@facisa.ufrn.br.
Abstract
QUESTION: What are the effects of dry cupping on pain intensity, physical function, functional mobility, trunk range of motion, perceived overall effect, quality of life, psychological symptoms and medication use in individuals with chronic non-specific low back pain? DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial with concealed allocation, intention-to-treat analysis and blinding of participants and assessors. PARTICIPANTS: Ninety participants with chronic non-specific low back pain. INTERVENTIONS: The experimental group (n = 45) received dry cupping therapy, with cups bilaterally positioned parallel to the L1 to L5 vertebrae. The control group (n = 45) received sham cupping therapy. The interventions were applied once a week for 8 weeks. OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants were assessed before and after the first treatment session, and after 4 and 8 weeks of intervention. The primary outcome was pain intensity, measured with the numerical pain scale at rest, during fast walking and during trunk flexion. Secondary outcomes were physical function, functional mobility, trunk range of motion, perceived overall effect, quality of life, psychological symptoms and medication use. RESULTS: On a 0-to-10 scale, the between-group difference in pain severity at rest was negligible: MD 0.0 (95% CI -0.9 to 1.0) immediately after the first treatment, 0.4 (95% CI -0.5 to 1.5) at 4 weeks and 0.6 (95% CI -0.4 to 1.6) at 8 weeks. Similar negligible effects were observed on pain severity during fast walking or trunk flexion. Negligible effects were also found on physical function, functional mobility and perceived overall effect, where mean estimates and their confidence intervals all excluded worthwhile effects. No worthwhile benefits could be confirmed for any of the remaining secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION:Dry cupping therapy was not superior to sham cupping for improving pain, physical function, mobility, quality of life, psychological symptoms or medication use in people with non-specific chronic low back pain. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03909672.
RCT Entities:
QUESTION: What are the effects of dry cupping on pain intensity, physical function, functional mobility, trunk range of motion, perceived overall effect, quality of life, psychological symptoms and medication use in individuals with chronic non-specific low back pain? DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial with concealed allocation, intention-to-treat analysis and blinding of participants and assessors. PARTICIPANTS: Ninety participants with chronic non-specific low back pain. INTERVENTIONS: The experimental group (n = 45) received dry cupping therapy, with cups bilaterally positioned parallel to the L1 to L5 vertebrae. The control group (n = 45) received sham cupping therapy. The interventions were applied once a week for 8 weeks. OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants were assessed before and after the first treatment session, and after 4 and 8 weeks of intervention. The primary outcome was pain intensity, measured with the numerical pain scale at rest, during fast walking and during trunk flexion. Secondary outcomes were physical function, functional mobility, trunk range of motion, perceived overall effect, quality of life, psychological symptoms and medication use. RESULTS: On a 0-to-10 scale, the between-group difference in pain severity at rest was negligible: MD 0.0 (95% CI -0.9 to 1.0) immediately after the first treatment, 0.4 (95% CI -0.5 to 1.5) at 4 weeks and 0.6 (95% CI -0.4 to 1.6) at 8 weeks. Similar negligible effects were observed on pain severity during fast walking or trunk flexion. Negligible effects were also found on physical function, functional mobility and perceived overall effect, where mean estimates and their confidence intervals all excluded worthwhile effects. No worthwhile benefits could be confirmed for any of the remaining secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: Dry cupping therapy was not superior to sham cupping for improving pain, physical function, mobility, quality of life, psychological symptoms or medication use in people with non-specific chronic low back pain. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03909672.