Despite the recent re-emergence of the process of cupping by athletes, supporting evidence for its efficacy and safety remains scarce. This systematic review aims to summarize the evidence of clinical trials on cupping for athletes.
SCOPUS, Cochrane Library, PubMed, AMED, and CNKI databases were searched from their inception to December 10, 2016. Randomized controlled trials on cupping therapy with no restriction regarding the technique, or cointerventions, were included, if they measured the effects of cupping compared with any other intervention on health and performance outcomes in professionals, semi-professionals, and leisure athletes. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool were conducted independently by two pairs of reviewers.
Eleven trials with n = 498 participants from China, the United States, Greece, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates were included, reporting effects on different populations, including soccer, football, and handball players, swimmers, gymnasts, and track and field athletes of both amateur and professional nature. Cupping was applied between 1 and 20 times, in daily or weekly intervals, alone or in combination with, for example, acupuncture. Outcomes varied greatly from symptom intensity, recovery measures, functional measures, serum markers, and experimental outcomes. Cupping was reported as beneficial for perceptions of pain and disability, increased range of motion, and reductions in creatine kinase when compared to mostly untreated control groups. The majority of trials had an unclear or high risk of bias. None of the studies reported safety.
No explicit recommendation for or against the use of cupping for athletes can be made. More studies are necessary for conclusive judgment on the efficacy and safety of cupping in athletes.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 225. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 January 2026.
All research outputs
#214,662
of 34,357,901 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Alternative & Complementary Medicine
#61
of 2,452 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,708
of 493,312 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Alternative & Complementary Medicine
#2
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,357,901 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,452 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 493,312 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
