SynthesisFrontiers in neurology2026
Effects of pricking-and-cupping bloodletting therapy on pain and skin lesions in patients with herpes zoster: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in neurology, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To systematically assess the effectiveness and safety of pricking-and-cupping bloodletting therapy in relieving pain and improving skin lesion outcomes in herpes zoster (HZ) patients. Methods: All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) exploring the therapy's impact on HZ-related pain and skin lesions were identified through a comprehensive electronic search of CNKI, VIP, Wanfang, SinoMed, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library, with the search period ranging from each database's establishment until November 2025. Included studies were assessed for quality via Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, followed by meta-analysis with Stata MP 19.5. The evidence certainty for each outcome was graded via the GRADE framework. PROSPERO Registration: CRD420251267768。. Results: A total of 31 studies involving 2,443 patients were ultimately included in the meta-analysis. The pooled analysis demonstrated that, compared with conventional Western medicine, pricking-and-cupping bloodletting therapy yielded superior outcomes across multiple endpoints. These included Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) pain scores [SMD = -1.59, 95% CI (-2.13, -1.05), Conclusion: Pricking-and-cupping bloodletting therapy shows a relative benefit in shortening the time to pain relief, accelerating skin lesion healing, and reducing the incidence of postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) in patients with herpes zoster. However, given the very low certainty of evidence as assessed by the GRADE framework, clinical interpretation should be cautious. Rigorous, large-sample, multicenter randomized controlled trials are urgently needed to validate its efficacy and strengthen the reliability of clinical evidence. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/search, identifier CRD420251267768.
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.