SynthesisJournal of traditional Chinese medicine = Chung i tsa chih ying wen pan2022
Efficacy and safety of blood pricking and cupping for treating nonspecific low back pain: a systematic review and Meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of traditional Chinese medicine = Chung i tsa chih ying wen pan, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trends and hotspots in cupping therapy research for pain: a bibliometric study.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Efficacy of cupping therapy on pain outcomes: an evidence-mapping study.Frontiers in neurology · 2023Pooled it
- Various acupuncture therapies for managing nonspecific low back pain: a network Meta-analysis.Journal of traditional Chinese medicine = Chung i tsa chih ying wen pan · 2025Article
- Effects of different negative pressure cupping interventions on inflammatory response and motor function recovery in delayed onset muscle soreness.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2025Article
- Article
- [Complementary and alternative medicine-An option for chronic pain patients?]Schmerz (Berlin, Germany) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of blood pricking and cupping in the treatment of nonspecific low back pain (NLBP).
methodsThe China National Knowledge Infrastructure Database (CNKI), Wanfang Med Online Database (Wanfang), China Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP), PubMed, Web of Science, EMBase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to October 31, 2021, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of the treatment of NLBP by blood pricking and cupping. The quality of each included study was evaluated according to the Cochrane Systematic Assessor's Manual evaluation criteria, while the Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 software.
resultsA total of 13 thirteen RCTs included a total of 1088 subjects. The visual analogue scale scores indicated that blood pricking and cupping was superior to the other treatments at relieving NLBP pain [mean difference () = -1.43; 95% confidence interval (): -2.31 to 0.54; = 3.15; = 0.002). The Oswestry Disability Index score of blood pricking and cupping was superior to that of the control group in terms of improving NLBP dysfunction ( = -6.25; 95%: -8.37 to -4.31); = 5.77; < 0.000 01). 7 RCTs mentioned no adverse reactions, while one study reported mild syncope [7% (3), all in the 17-30 years group] that was gradually relieved after rest.
conclusionsBlood pricking and cupping therapy can safely and effectively reduce pain and improve functional impairment in patients with NLBP. However, this study included limited high-grade studies with a small overall sample size; therefore, further high-quality large-sample RCTs are needed to improve clinical evidence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.