Research &
Evidence
Explore cupping therapy research on Hijama and cupping therapy, including clinical findings, potential benefits, study limitations, and safety considerations without exaggerated claims.
Explore the ResearchWhat we know so far
Some studies report benefits, especially for certain pain outcomes. Overall evidence remains mixed and varies in quality.
Some trials suggest short-term reductions in pain, but study limitations affect confidence.
Durable improvements in function or pain over many months are not consistently demonstrated.
Research does not reliably establish cupping as a treatment for unrelated medical diseases.
Inside the research
Four peer-reviewed publications showing potential benefits as well as important negative findings.
Chronic musculoskeletal pain
A BMJ Open review found lower pain intensity in pooled studies, but no significant improvement in disability or mental health. Study results varied substantially.
Low back pain
A review of 11 randomized trials involving 921 participants reported improvement in some short-term pain assessments, but inconsistent effects at later follow-ups.
Chronic neck pain
A review of nine randomized trials involving 401 participants reported improvements in pain and neck-related disability, while acknowledging methodological limitations.
Knee osteoarthritis
In a trial involving 62 women with knee osteoarthritis, dry cupping was not superior to sham cupping for pain, functional capacity or quality of life.
These are selected studies, not a complete systematic review. Findings from dry cupping cannot automatically be applied to wet Hijama, and vice versa.
What makes a study trustworthy?
Evidence is more than a positive result.
Credible interpretation considers participants, the type of cupping, control groups, risk of bias and whether benefits lasted after treatment.
Randomized and sham-controlled trials help distinguish treatment effects from expectations.
Wet and dry cupping differ, and results depend on how treatments are compared.
Pain scores, daily function, quality of life and long-term follow-up answer different questions.
Safety is part of the evidence.
Cupping can cause skin marks and adverse effects. Wet cupping involves skin incisions and requires careful screening, sterile technique and infection control. It should not replace diagnosis or evidence-based medical care.
Read our Safety & Aftercare guides ↗- Screen for contraindications and medical risks.
- Follow hygiene and infection-control procedures.
- Discuss expected skin effects and complications.
- Seek medical care for concerning symptoms.
Frequently asked questions
Is cupping therapy scientifically proven?
Some research suggests benefits for certain pain symptoms, but evidence is mixed and limited by study quality. It does not establish that cupping reliably treats every disease.
Does dry cupping research prove wet Hijama works?
No. The techniques differ, so their treatment effects and safety findings should not be assumed interchangeable.
Can Hijama replace prescribed treatment?
No. Hijama should not replace medical assessment, prescribed medication or established treatments. Consult a qualified healthcare professional.
Why do studies reach different conclusions?
Studies differ in participants, technique, session frequency, comparison groups, outcomes and follow-up duration. Bias and small sample sizes may also influence findings.
References & further reading
Open the original research records and authoritative health information.
- NCCIH. Cupping: What the Science Says and Safety.
- Jia Y, et al. (2025). Effects of cupping therapy on chronic musculoskeletal pain. BMJ Open.
- Zhang Z, et al. (2024). Effectiveness of cupping therapy for low back pain.
- Torad AAM, et al. (2026). Effect of cupping therapy on chronic neck pain.
- Cavalcanti RR, et al. (2026). Dry cupping in women with knee osteoarthritis.
- Evidence mapping of cupping therapy for pain (2023).
Educational summary of selected publications. Not a formal systematic review or individualized medical advice.