Since Gwyneth Paltrow, as well as US Olympic swimmers, were publicly sporting their cupping marks, cupping has repeatedly occupied the pages of this blog. Now, cupping is in the news yet again. It has been reported that an image of a self-proclaimed ‘cupping’ expert performing treatment on a newborn baby has caused a major outcry. The photo shows a three-month-old baby’s skin on its back being sucked into a cup with the skin deformed and bright red.

The man, known as Mustafa, who refers to himself as an ‘expert’ at a ’cupping centre’ in the city of Istanbul, recently shared the images on social media where he was apparently treating the baby for ‘gas’. “We provide cupping for everyone from three-month-old babies to 70-year-olds. We do it since it is an Islamic tradition and we believe that everyone should take part in it,“ Mustafa said. “I am not a swindler. I do not demand money from people. They give as much as they choose.”

Child and adolescent psychiatrist associate, Dr Veysi Ceri, slammed the parents who allowed the procedure to be performed on their children. “Children cannot be left at the mercy of their parents,” Dr Ceri said. “Cupping is something that is not based on scientific evidence and children are physically harmed from it.”

On social media, people expressed their fury, labelling the practice as “questionable”. One commenter wrote: “Are these people crazy? They don’t read or learn anything.” But there were also those who shared their positive experiences. “I congratulate the family who had cupping performed on their baby,” one person wrote. “I also do cupping regularly and I haven’t had a headache in years. I do not take any medicine either. It is also beneficial for children to have cupping.“


So, is there any reliable evidence about dry cupping for children?

Is it demonstrably effective for any paediatric condition?

Is it harmful?

Believe it or not, there has been at least one clinical trial of dry cupping as a treatment of constipation in children:

One hundred and twenty children (4-18 years old) diagnosed as functional constipation according to ROME III criteria were assigned to receive a traditional dry cupping protocol on the abdominal wall for 8 minutes every other day or standard laxative therapy (Polyethylene glycol (PEG) 40% solution without electrolyte), 0.4 g/kg once daily) for 4 weeks, in an open label randomized controlled clinical trial using a parallel design with a 1:1 allocation ratio. Patients were evaluated prior to and following 2, 4, 8 and 12 weeks of the intervention commencement in terms of the ROME III criteria for functional constipation.

Results: There were no significant differences between the two arms regarding demographic and clinical basic characteristics. After two weeks of the intervention, there was a significant better result in most of the items of ROME III criteria of patients in PEG group. In contrast, after four weeks of the intervention, the result was significantly better in the cupping group. There was no significant difference in the number of patients with constipation after 4 and 8 weeks of the follow-up period.

Conclusion: This study showed that dry cupping of the abdominal wall, as a traditional manipulative therapy, can be as effective as standard laxative therapy in children with functional constipation.

This study is squarely negative, yet the conclusions are clearly positive. I have stopped being amazed by such contradictions. After all, we are dealing with so-called alternative medicine (SCAM)!

For what it’s worth, here is our 2011 overview of all systematic reviews of cupping:

Several systematic reviews (SRs) have assessed the effectiveness of cupping for a range of conditions. Our aim was to provide a critical evaluation and summary of these data. Electronic searches were conducted to locate all SRs concerning cupping for any condition. Data were extracted by two authors according to predefined criteria. Five SRs met our inclusion criteria, which related to the following conditions: pain conditions, stroke rehabilitation, hypertension, and herpes zoster. The numbers of studies included in each SR were small. Relatively clear evidence emerged only for one indication, that cupping may be effective for reducing pain. Based on evidence from the currently available SRs, the effectiveness of cupping has been demonstrated only as a treatment for pain, and even for this indication doubts remain.

And here is our 2011 SR of cupping as a treatment of pain:

The objective of this study was to assess the evidence for or against the effectiveness of cupping as a treatment option for pain. Fourteen databases were searched. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) testing cupping in patients with pain of any origin were considered. Trials using cupping with or without drawing blood were included, while trials comparing cupping with other treatments of unproven efficacy were excluded. Trials with cupping as concomitant treatment together with other treatments of unproven efficacy were excluded. Trials were also excluded if pain was not a central symptom of the condition. The selection of studies, data extraction and validation were performed independently by three reviewers. Seven RCTs met all the inclusion criteria. Two RCTs suggested significant pain reduction for cupping in low back pain compared with usual care (P < .01) and analgesia (P < .001). Another two RCTs also showed positive effects of cupping in cancer pain (P < .05) and trigeminal neuralgia (P < .01) compared with anticancer drugs and analgesics, respectively. Two RCTs reported favorable effects of cupping on pain in brachialgia compared with usual care (P = .03) or heat pad (P < .001). The other RCT failed to show superior effects of cupping on pain in herpes zoster compared with anti-viral medication (P = .065). Currently there are few RCTs testing the effectiveness of cupping in the management of pain. Most of the existing trials are of poor quality. Therefore, more rigorous studies are required before the effectiveness of cupping for the treatment of pain can be determined.

The included trials frequently were silent about adverse effects. Others reported no adverse effects and one mentioned three cases of vaso-vagal shock. None of the studies was on children.

So, here are my answers to the questions above:

  1. Is there any reliable evidence about dry cupping for children? No
  2. Is it demonstrably effective for any paediatric condition? No
  3. Is it harmful? Probably not that much (other than undermining common sense and rationality).

8 Responses to Infant receiving cupping treatment prompts outrage

  • there is no rational basis for thinking that cupping might be useful for anything – what would the mechanism be?
    as always the problem with doing studies on implausible modalities is that there are much more likely to be weakly false positive results. this leads to the inevitable SCAM mantra – more studies are needed.

    but most SCAMs are based on wildly implausible ideas. so this is a never ending farce.

    no more studies are needed – cupping is an idiotic nonsense – it should be consigned to the dustbin of loony ideas.

  • I also do cupping regularly and I haven’t had a headache in years.

    I play the base guitar regularly and I haven’t had a headache in years.

    I do not take any medicine either.

    Neither do I.

    I’m afraid that we humans still have some way to go to actually deserve the ‘sapiens’ suffix after our species designation of ‘Homo’.

  • “Children cannot be left at the mercy of their parents,” Dr Ceri said.

    Lets hear it for fascism!

    If its not harmful and parents find that it helps for their children, are we supposed to instead turn our children over to the “experts” to run their lives?

    • @ Roger

      au contraire – as usual Roger if there is a position you will be on the wrong side of it.

      This is child abuse pure and simple!
      The parents should be reported to child services and the police.
      There is NO benefit to the child who is incapable of giving consent for this madness.

      Cupping has no benefits – it is as useless and pointless as that other inanity homeopathy.
      Parents should take their children to real doctors if they need medical care – not subject them to torture at the hands of pseudoscientific charlatans.
      The parents obviously need re-education and careful supervision under the care of a social worker.

      There is no excuse for subjecting defenceless children and babies to procedures from which there can be no possible benefit, only pain or harm, and in turn if the child actually needs medical care of some kind they are then missing out on this as well.

      It is of great concern that you are advocating for child abuse in this case and I most fervently hope that you do not have actual children or babies in your care. I personally believe that homeopaths should not be administering to children or babies as their minimal training and pseudoscientific beliefs made then singularly unsuitable to be entrusted with the care of this vulnerable and fragile age group.

    • @Roger
      Cupping is completely useless and not risk-free, as it ruptures capillaries under the skin much like serious bruising does. It can cause discomfort, bleeding and permanent discolouration of the skin.
      Parents should also be aware that the bruising marks can be mistaken for signs of serious child abuse.

      So yes, when the health children is at stake, parents should first and foremost listen to experts, not to quacks or to their own beliefs.

    • you did not realize fascism in your leader Trump but in the comment of a doctor trying to protect children from quackery?
      how bizarre!

  • This is obviously wet cupping, which is nothiing more or less than the archaic practice of bloodletting, a prime example of archeological medical remnants.

    I believe the arabic term for wet cupping is hijama or alhijama and it is a commonplace practice in arabic cultures even in “the west”. Of course, the fact that bloodletting is still practiced somewhere in the world does not corroborate usefulness or safety. Such practices involving useless injury should be discouraged or even forbidden. I agree that cupping children, wet or dry, should be considered criminal abuse.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Subscribe via email

Enter your email address to receive notifications of new blog posts by email.

Recent Comments

Note that comments can be edited for up to five minutes after they are first submitted but you must tick the box: “Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.”

The most recent comments from all posts can be seen here.