Evidence Hub

Interventions used in control group against cupping therapy for chronic nonspecific low back pain: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Li J, Jia Y, Sun T, Bai Z, Dong X, Hou X

Complementary therapies in medicine, 2025

1 citation

Abstract

Introduction: The evidence for the effect of cupping therapy on chronic nonspecific low back pain (CLBP) remains controversial, and existing researches didn't consider outcomes influenced by factor of selection of interventions in control group. This review and network meta-analysis is to compare the effects of diverse interventions in cupping therapy control groups for CLBP, with the objective of identifying the suitable control intervention against cupping therapy for CLBP.

Methods: Studies were identified by a comprehensive search of databases, such as PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), up to June, 2024. A total of 10 randomized control trials (RCT) were included in this network meta-analysis (NMA).

Results: The results showed that compared with cupping therapy, minimum negative pressure cupping therapy (MNPCT) (SMD = - 0.01; 95 %CI: - 0.92 to 0.89), air circulating cupping therapy (ACCT) (SMD = - 0.05; 95 %CI: - 0.63 to 0.54) and diclofenac (SMD = - 0.13; 95 %CI: - 1.13 to - 0.87) was no significantly different from improvement of pain intensity. But there was significant difference between cupping therapy and D-ibuprofen (SMD = - 1.11; 95 %CI: - 2.08 to - 0.13), paracetamol (SMD = - 1.12; 95 %CI: - 1.80 to - 0.43) or usual care (SMD = - 1.18; 95 %CI: - 2.56 to - 1.06). The order of intervention effect by SUCRA diagram was as follows: cupping therapy (77.7 %) > MNPCT (75.2 %) > ACCT (73.8 %) > diclofenac…

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.

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