Pulsatile dry cupping in chronic low back pain – a randomized three-armed controlled clinical trial
Abstract Background We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of two different forms of dry pulsatile cupping in patients with chronic low back pain (cLBP) compared to medication on demand only in a three-armed randomized trial. Methods 110 cLBP patients were randomized to regular pulsatile cupping...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2018-04-01
|
| Series: | BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12906-018-2187-8 |
| _version_ | 1811286876931227648 |
|---|---|
| author | M. Teut A. Ullmann M. Ortiz G. Rotter S. Binting M. Cree F. Lotz S. Roll B. Brinkhaus |
| author_facet | M. Teut A. Ullmann M. Ortiz G. Rotter S. Binting M. Cree F. Lotz S. Roll B. Brinkhaus |
| author_sort | M. Teut |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Background We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of two different forms of dry pulsatile cupping in patients with chronic low back pain (cLBP) compared to medication on demand only in a three-armed randomized trial. Methods 110 cLBP patients were randomized to regular pulsatile cupping with 8 treatments plus paracetamol on demand (n = 37), minimal cupping with 8 treatments plus paracetamol on demand (n = 36) or the control group with paracetamol on demand only (n = 37). Primary outcome was the pain intensity on a visual analogue scale (VAS, 0–100 mm) after 4 weeks, secondary outcome parameter included VAS pain intensity after 12 weeks, back function as measured with the ‘Funktionsfragebogen Hannover Rücken’ (FFbH-R) and health related quality of life questionnaire Short form 36 (SF-36) after 4 and 12 weeks. Results The mean baseline-adjusted VAS after 4 weeks was 34.9 mm (95% CI: 28.7; 41.2) for pulsatile cupping, 40.4 (34.2; 46.7) for minimal cupping and 56.1 (49.8; 62.4) for control group, resulting in statistically significant differences between pulsatile cupping vs. control (21.2 (12.2; 30.1); p < 0.001) and minimal cupping vs. control (15.7 (6.9; 24.4); p = 0.001). After 12 weeks, mean adjusted VAS difference between pulsatile cupping vs. control was 15.1 ((3.1; 27.1); p = 0.014), and between minimal cupping vs. control 11.5 ((− 0.44; 23.4); p = 0.059). Differences of VAS between pulsatile cupping and minimal cupping showed no significant differences after 4 or 12 weeks. Pulsatile cupping was also better (− 5.8 (− 11.5;-0.1); p = 0.045) compared to control for back function after 4 weeks, but not after 12 weeks (− 5.4 (− 11.7;0.8); p = 0.088), pulsatile cupping also showed better improvements on SF-36 physical component scale compared to control at 4 and 12 weeks (− 5.6 (− 9.3;-2.0); p = 0.003; − 6.1 (− 9.9;-2.4); p = 0.002). For back function and quality of life minimal cupping group was not statistically different to control after 4 and 12 weeks. Paracetamol intake did not differ between the groups (cupping vs. control (7.3 (− 0.4;15.0); p = 0.063); minimal cupping vs. control (6.3 (− 2.0;14.5); p = 0.133). Conclusions Both forms of cupping were effective in cLBP without showing significant differences in direct comparison after four weeks, only pulsatile cupping showed effects compared to control after 12 weeks. Trial registration The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT02090686). |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-13T03:08:45Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-75932f6536194119bd56ecc7a449dd77 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1472-6882 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-13T03:08:45Z |
| publishDate | 2018-04-01 |
| publisher | BMC |
| record_format | Article |
| series | BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine |
| spelling | doaj.art-75932f6536194119bd56ecc7a449dd772022-12-22T03:05:10ZengBMCBMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine1472-68822018-04-011811910.1186/s12906-018-2187-8Pulsatile dry cupping in chronic low back pain – a randomized three-armed controlled clinical trialM. Teut0A. Ullmann1M. Ortiz2G. Rotter3S. Binting4M. Cree5F. Lotz6S. Roll7B. Brinkhaus8Institute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of HealthInstitute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of HealthInstitute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of HealthInstitute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of HealthInstitute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of HealthInstitute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of HealthInstitute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of HealthInstitute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of HealthInstitute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of HealthAbstract Background We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of two different forms of dry pulsatile cupping in patients with chronic low back pain (cLBP) compared to medication on demand only in a three-armed randomized trial. Methods 110 cLBP patients were randomized to regular pulsatile cupping with 8 treatments plus paracetamol on demand (n = 37), minimal cupping with 8 treatments plus paracetamol on demand (n = 36) or the control group with paracetamol on demand only (n = 37). Primary outcome was the pain intensity on a visual analogue scale (VAS, 0–100 mm) after 4 weeks, secondary outcome parameter included VAS pain intensity after 12 weeks, back function as measured with the ‘Funktionsfragebogen Hannover Rücken’ (FFbH-R) and health related quality of life questionnaire Short form 36 (SF-36) after 4 and 12 weeks. Results The mean baseline-adjusted VAS after 4 weeks was 34.9 mm (95% CI: 28.7; 41.2) for pulsatile cupping, 40.4 (34.2; 46.7) for minimal cupping and 56.1 (49.8; 62.4) for control group, resulting in statistically significant differences between pulsatile cupping vs. control (21.2 (12.2; 30.1); p < 0.001) and minimal cupping vs. control (15.7 (6.9; 24.4); p = 0.001). After 12 weeks, mean adjusted VAS difference between pulsatile cupping vs. control was 15.1 ((3.1; 27.1); p = 0.014), and between minimal cupping vs. control 11.5 ((− 0.44; 23.4); p = 0.059). Differences of VAS between pulsatile cupping and minimal cupping showed no significant differences after 4 or 12 weeks. Pulsatile cupping was also better (− 5.8 (− 11.5;-0.1); p = 0.045) compared to control for back function after 4 weeks, but not after 12 weeks (− 5.4 (− 11.7;0.8); p = 0.088), pulsatile cupping also showed better improvements on SF-36 physical component scale compared to control at 4 and 12 weeks (− 5.6 (− 9.3;-2.0); p = 0.003; − 6.1 (− 9.9;-2.4); p = 0.002). For back function and quality of life minimal cupping group was not statistically different to control after 4 and 12 weeks. Paracetamol intake did not differ between the groups (cupping vs. control (7.3 (− 0.4;15.0); p = 0.063); minimal cupping vs. control (6.3 (− 2.0;14.5); p = 0.133). Conclusions Both forms of cupping were effective in cLBP without showing significant differences in direct comparison after four weeks, only pulsatile cupping showed effects compared to control after 12 weeks. Trial registration The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT02090686).http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12906-018-2187-8CuppingPulsatile cuppingMinimal cuppingLow back painChronic low back painRCT |
| spellingShingle | M. Teut A. Ullmann M. Ortiz G. Rotter S. Binting M. Cree F. Lotz S. Roll B. Brinkhaus Pulsatile dry cupping in chronic low back pain – a randomized three-armed controlled clinical trial BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine Cupping Pulsatile cupping Minimal cupping Low back pain Chronic low back pain RCT |
| title | Pulsatile dry cupping in chronic low back pain – a randomized three-armed controlled clinical trial |
| title_full | Pulsatile dry cupping in chronic low back pain – a randomized three-armed controlled clinical trial |
| title_fullStr | Pulsatile dry cupping in chronic low back pain – a randomized three-armed controlled clinical trial |
| title_full_unstemmed | Pulsatile dry cupping in chronic low back pain – a randomized three-armed controlled clinical trial |
| title_short | Pulsatile dry cupping in chronic low back pain – a randomized three-armed controlled clinical trial |
| title_sort | pulsatile dry cupping in chronic low back pain a randomized three armed controlled clinical trial |
| topic | Cupping Pulsatile cupping Minimal cupping Low back pain Chronic low back pain RCT |
| url | http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12906-018-2187-8 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT mteut pulsatiledrycuppinginchroniclowbackpainarandomizedthreearmedcontrolledclinicaltrial AT aullmann pulsatiledrycuppinginchroniclowbackpainarandomizedthreearmedcontrolledclinicaltrial AT mortiz pulsatiledrycuppinginchroniclowbackpainarandomizedthreearmedcontrolledclinicaltrial AT grotter pulsatiledrycuppinginchroniclowbackpainarandomizedthreearmedcontrolledclinicaltrial AT sbinting pulsatiledrycuppinginchroniclowbackpainarandomizedthreearmedcontrolledclinicaltrial AT mcree pulsatiledrycuppinginchroniclowbackpainarandomizedthreearmedcontrolledclinicaltrial AT flotz pulsatiledrycuppinginchroniclowbackpainarandomizedthreearmedcontrolledclinicaltrial AT sroll pulsatiledrycuppinginchroniclowbackpainarandomizedthreearmedcontrolledclinicaltrial AT bbrinkhaus pulsatiledrycuppinginchroniclowbackpainarandomizedthreearmedcontrolledclinicaltrial |