Evidence Hub

Cupping Therapy for the Treatment of Migraine Headache: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials

B. Mohandes, F. Bayoumi, Aisha Abdulkarim AllahDiwaya, M. Falah, Leen Alhamd, R. Alsawadi, Yi-Peng Sun, Ai-Jun Ma et al.

Journal of Pharmacopuncture, 2024

1,446 participants · 7 citations

Abstract

Objectives Cupping therapy is a widely used complementary medicine for the treatment of migraine headaches globally. However, conflicting evidence exists on its effectiveness. To evaluate the safety and efficacy of cupping therapy in treating migraine headache disorder. Methods Seven databases were systematically searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Clinicaltrials.gov, Cochrane CENTRAL, ScienceDirect, ProQuest, SinoMed, and the National Science and Technology Library. The primary endpoints are the treatment success and the pain intensity reduction. The secondary endpoints were adverse events (AEs) risk and improvement in quality of life (QoL), which was based on the Migraine Disability Scale (MIDAS). Subgroup analyses were performed based on the cupping techniques (wet and dry cupping) and adjunctive complementary treatments (i.e. acupuncture and/or collateral pricking). Results Eighteen trials out of 348 records were included, pooling 1,446 participants (n = 797 received cupping therapy). Treatment success was significantly higher among those with cupping therapy (risk ratio [RR] [95% CI] = 1.83 [1.52-2.21]); with significant improvement observed only with wet cupping (RR [95% CI] = 1.88 [1.53-2.30]). The adjunctive complementary therapy did not achieve a greater amplitude of treatment success compared to cupping therapy alone. Furthermore, cupping therapy showed significant pain reduction compared to baseline (standardized mean difference [SMD] [95% CI] = 0.55 [0.39-0.70]) and…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 1,446 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free