ArticleMedicine2025
Exploring the acute recovery effects of dry cupping therapy and electrical stimulation on anaerobic performance metrics in active individuals: A quasi-experimental crossover study.
Article in Medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis quasi-experimental crossover study aimed to examine the acute effects of dry cupping therapy (DCT) and neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) on fatigue and perceived exertion in anaerobic performance among physically active individuals.
methodsTwelve male participants (mean age: 24.1 ± 2.37 years), all students from the Faculty of Sports Sciences, were recruited to participate voluntarily. Anaerobic performance parameters, including peak power, mean power (MP), and fatigue index (FI), were assessed using a Monark 839E cycling ergometer under 3 distinct conditions: NMES, DCT, and a control condition (no intervention), with each session separated by a 48-hour rest period. Perceived exertion was evaluated immediately following each test session using Borg's rate of perceived exertion (RPE) scale. Both NMES and DCT were administered bilaterally to the hamstring (m. hamstring) and quadriceps femoris (m. quadriceps femoris) muscles for 20 minutes before testing.
resultsThe results revealed no statistically significant differences in peak power and MP across the conditions. However, significant effects were identified for FI (F(2, 22) = 4.08, P = .031, ηp² = 0.27) and RPE (F(2, 22] = 8.88, P = .0015, ηp² = 0.45). Post hoc pairwise comparisons indicated that NMES significantly reduced FI compared to the control condition (P = .0311), with a small to medium effect size (Cohen's d = 0.44). In terms of RPE, DCT significantly lowered values compared to both the control (P = .0018) and NMES conditions (P = .0005), demonstrating medium (Cohen's d = 0.74) and small to medium (Cohen's d = 0.37) effect sizes, respectively.
conclusionsWhile NMES and DCT did not elicit acute improvements in peak or mean anaerobic power, both interventions effectively mitigated fatigue and reduced perceived exertion during maximal anaerobic exercise. These findings suggest that NMES and DCT may serve as valuable recovery modalities for mitigating fatigue in sports characterized by high anaerobic demands. Future research should investigate the chronic effects of these interventions and explore their utility among trained athletes to determine their broader applicability in enhancing athletic performance.
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.