This systematic review evaluates cupping therapy's effects on lung function and symptoms in COPD patients, suggesting potential benefits for respiratory health.
Introduction: Airflow restriction and persistent inflammation are hallmarks of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), a progressive and irreversible illness. Cupping therapy is one of the non-pharmacological treatments that have gained popularity due to the rising prevalence of COPD worldwide. The usefulness of cupping therapy in enhancing lung function and reducing respiratory symptoms in patients with COPD is investigated in this systematic review. Methods: To find pertinent studies published between February 2025 to July 2025, a thorough literature search was carried out using PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Clinical trials and observational studies evaluating the impact of cupping therapy on lung function in patients with COPD were among the eligible studies. Cupping therapy type, sample size, intervention duration, follow-up period, pulmonary function parameters (FEV, FVC, and FEV/FVC ratio), symptom relief, and reported complications were among the extracted data. Results: A total of 624 COPD patients from eight studies satisfied the inclusion requirements. With reported mean increases in FEV ranging from 5% to 12% and FVC from 4% to 10% compared to baseline, both dry and wet cupping therapy showed improvements in pulmonary function. Additionally, a number of studies reported improvements in exercise tolerance, quality-of-life metrics, and dyspnea severity scores. The majority of the reported complications were mild local skin reactions. Direct comparability between trials was, however, constrained by differences in study design, duration, and cupping procedures. Conclusion: In patients with COPD, especially those with moderate to severe disease, cupping therapy seems to be linked to clinically significant improvements in lung function and symptom relief. Although the treatment might be a helpful supplement to traditional care, larger longitudinal studies and technique standardization are required to elucidate the therapy's long-term safety and pulmonary benefits.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Suliman et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: