Neurological Complications of Cupping Therapy: A Comprehensive Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cupping therapy, a traditional treatment method, has been shown to be effective in various studies. However, there have been reports of significant neurological complications following cupping therapy. This comprehensive review aimed to investigate the important and potentially severe neurological complications documented in the literature. SUMMARY: The review analyzed case reports and case studies published in three major databases (PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane) up to June 2024. The search strategy involved a three-step process, where two traditional medicine experts independently searched for case reports and published case series, and then a 3-person committee consisting of two traditional medicine experts and a neurologist reviewed the selected articles. Out of 280 case reports and case series, 12 studies were included in the review, reporting 14 patients with neurological complications. The majority of cases (7/14) involved interventions combining cupping with other traditional medicine manual therapies. Complications reported included vascular and infectious complications, with subdural hemorrhage being the most common (4/14). Most patients (11/14) were free of underlying diseases, and all but 3 patients recovered from their complications with surgical and medical treatments. KEY MESSAGES: The study concludes that although rare, neurological complications of cupping therapy can be severe and potentially life-threatening. Therefore, it is essential for traditional medicine practitioners to be aware of these risks and take necessary precautions to prevent them. Adopting proper techniques and adhering to health guidelines can help mitigate the likelihood of complications. The creation of an international system to record and report the side effects of cupping therapy is also recommended.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".