↓ Skip to main content

Pulsatile dry cupping in chronic low back pain – a randomized three-armed controlled clinical trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (61st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
174 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Pulsatile dry cupping in chronic low back pain – a randomized three-armed controlled clinical trial
Published in
BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12906-018-2187-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

M. Teut, A. Ullmann, M. Ortiz, G. Rotter, S. Binting, M. Cree, F. Lotz, S. Roll, B. Brinkhaus

Abstract

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. 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. 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). 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. The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT02090686 ).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 174 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 174 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 23 13%
Student > Master 19 11%
Other 12 7%
Researcher 10 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 6%
Other 24 14%
Unknown 76 44%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 35 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 32 18%
Sports and Recreations 6 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Neuroscience 3 2%
Other 17 10%
Unknown 76 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 12 April 2018.
All research outputs
#7,772,876
of 24,321,976 outputs
Outputs from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#1,234
of 3,820 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#128,245
of 332,514 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#23
of 94 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,321,976 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,820 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 332,514 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 94 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.