E1 ReplicatedPreliminaryPEM not requiredRCTPeer-reviewedMachine draft
The effectiveness of cupping therapy on chronic fatigue syndrome: A single-blind randomized controlled trial.
Meng, Xiu-Dong, Guo, Hao-Ran, Zhang, Qing-Ying et al. · Complementary therapies in clinical practice · 2020 · DOI
Quick Summary
This study tested whether cupping therapy—a traditional treatment where cups create suction on the skin—could help people with ME/CFS feel less tired. Researchers divided 112 patients into three groups that received different levels of suction and compared the results. After 10 sessions over 5 weeks, all groups reported improvements in fatigue and sleep, with 10 sessions working better than 5 sessions, though the pressure levels didn't make much difference.
Why It Matters
This research explores a non-pharmacological treatment option for ME/CFS fatigue, which is important because pharmaceutical options are limited and many patients seek complementary approaches. Understanding whether cupping provides genuine benefit versus placebo effect remains clinically relevant for shared decision-making with patients exploring treatment options.
Observed Findings
- FS-14 fatigue scores decreased across all three pressure groups at 5 sessions (range: 2.39–3.40 points) and 10 sessions (range: 4.06–5.00 points), with no statistically significant differences between pressure levels.
- Fatigue reduction was significantly greater after 10 sessions compared to 5 sessions (P < 0.01) across all groups.
- No statistically significant between-group differences were found in FAI, SAS, SDS, or PSQI scores at either timepoint.
- Ninety-one of 112 enrolled participants completed the trial.
Inferred Conclusions
- Cupping therapy reduces fatigue symptoms in CFS patients, with improvements continuing from session 5 to session 10.
- Cupping pressure level (-0.02, -0.03, or -0.05 mPa) does not significantly influence treatment efficacy for fatigue reduction.
- Cupping may improve emotional well-being and sleep quality in CFS patients, though these secondary outcomes showed no significant between-group differences.
Remaining Questions
- Does cupping provide benefit beyond placebo effect in ME/CFS, and what is the optimal duration of treatment beyond 10 sessions?
- Which patient subgroups (if any) respond better to cupping, and are there mechanistic explanations for fatigue improvement?
What This Study Does Not Prove
This study does not prove that cupping therapy is superior to placebo, as there was no control group receiving sham cupping or standard care. The improvements observed could partly reflect placebo effect, natural variation, or regression to the mean. The single-blind design (patients but not assessors masked) also introduces potential bias in subjective fatigue reporting.
Tags
Symptom:Unrefreshing SleepFatigue
Method Flag:PEM Not DefinedWeak Case DefinitionSmall SampleMixed Cohort
Metadata
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.ctcp.2020.101210
- PMID
- 32891286
- Review status
- Machine draft
- Evidence level
- Replicated human evidence from multiple independent studies
- Last updated
- 8 April 2026
About the PEM badge: “PEM required” means post-exertional malaise was an explicit required diagnostic criterion for participant inclusion in this study — not that PEM was studied, observed, or discussed. Studies using criteria that do not require PEM (e.g. Fukuda, Oxford) are tagged “PEM not required”. How the atlas works →
Spotted an error in this entry? Report it →