Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Completed

NCT Number: NCT04230850

The Effects of Stretching Versus Static and Dynamic Cupping on Lumbar Range of Motion

The objective of this study is to fill gaps in the literature regarding the effectiveness of cupping therapy on lumbar stiffness. Participants will be recruited from the University of South Carolina and from local clinics in Columbia, South Carolina. Individuals will be classified based on lumbar range of motion limitations, and then they will be equally dispersed into three treatment groups via stratified randomization. These groups include dynamic cupping, static cupping, or stretching. All participants will be assessed prior to selected treatment to obtain baseline values for four measures: back range of motion (BROM), pain pressure threshold (PPT), active straight leg raise (ASLR), and numeric pain rating scale (NPRS). Participants will be given each measure directly after treatment, followed by a follow-up measurement 24 hours after treatment.

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

Conditions

Stiffness; Spine

Age range

18 year and older

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Not applicable

Primary location

University of South Carolina

Columbia, South Carolina, 29205, United States

About this study

Cupping therapy has become recently popular in Western culture due to affordability, lack of invasiveness, and low risk of adverse effects. However, there is insufficient evidence of the effectiveness on this treatment technique on decreasing pain and increasing range of motion. This project aims to help fill the gaps by using a larger sample size and clear methodology.

The aims of the study include to determine if both static and dynamic cupping therapy have a greater effect on BROM, PPT, ASLR, and NRPS as compared to stretching, and if any changes made are maintained to a different degree over a 24 hour period based on treatment. Additional aims of the study include to determine if there is a difference between type of cupping (static vs dynamic) on these four measures. By performing this study, scientific knowledge of cupping therapy will be improved and expanded, thus impacting how it is used in clinical practice.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: Yes

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

  • 18 years or older, 50 degrees or less of lumbar flexion

Exclusion criteria

  • Cancer, organ failure, collagen disorders, deep vein thrombosis, pacemakers, bleeding disorders, recent fever

Treatment and study plan

Static cupping

Other

Two cups will be applied unilaterally to the lumbar paraspinals. The skin will be elevated to 1.5 cm ensuring standardized pressure. Cups will remain on the treatment area statically for 4 minutes prior to removal. Another 4 minute bout of identical treatment to the contralateral side will follow. (Participants will be equally dispersed into three treatment groups via stratified randomization).

Dynamic cupping

Other

One cup will be applied ipsilaterally, raising skin to 1.2 cm of standard pressure. The cup will be continuously moved in a sweeping motion between L1 and L5 within a defined width. This process will be repeated on the other side. Each side will be treated for 4 minutes dynamically for a total treatment duration of 8 minutes. (Participants will be equally dispersed into three treatment groups via stratified randomization).

Stretching

Other

The stretching program performed will involve a double knee to chest stretch, cat stretch, camel stretch, and pelvic tilts. Participants will receive a 30 second rest break between each of the four stretches. (Participants will be equally dispersed into three treatment groups via stratified randomization).

Primary outcomes

  1. Back Range of Motion

    Time frame: At baseline, immediately following treatment, 24-hour follow up

    The BROM instrument will be used to measure lumbar range of motion in individuals with lumbar stiffness at initial baseline, the change in range of motion immediately following treatment, and any maintained change at 24 hour follow up.

Secondary outcomes

  1. Active Straight Leg Raise

    Time frame: At baseline, immediately following treatment, 24-hour follow up

    The ASLR will be used to assess hamstring flexibility in individuals with lumbar stiffness at initial baseline, the change in hamstring flexibility immediately following treatment, and any maintained change at 24 hour follow up.

  2. Pain Pressure Threshold

    Time frame: At baseline, immediately following treatment, 24-hour follow up

    The Wagner Force Ten FDX Compact Digital Force Gauge hand-held digital algometer will be used to measure pain pressure threshold at initial baseline, the change in pain pressure threshold immediately following treatment, and any maintained change at 24 hour follow up.

  3. Numeric Pain Rating Scale

    Time frame: At baseline, immediately following treatment, 24-hour follow up

    The Numeric Pain Rating Scale will be used to assess pain in individuals with lumbar stiffness at initial baseline, the change in pain immediately following treatment, and any maintained change in 24 hour follow up. Individuals will be asked to rate their current pain level on a scale of 0-10, with "0" representing no pain and "10" representing the worst pain imaginable.

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

University of South Carolina

Other

Registry information

Important dates

Study start
2020
Primary completion
2020
Study completion
2020
First posted
Jan 18, 2020
Registry last updated
Nov 16, 2020

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Related clinical trials

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.