Claim: A statement in this article cites a systematic review as a reference but omits its conclusion. This omission may contradict Wikipedia's policy on the Neutral point of view.

Current statement in the article: "Many reviews suggest there is insufficient scientific evidence to support the use of cupping techniques to combat relevant diseases and chronic pain."

Systematic review cited as a reference: An Updated Review of the Efficacy of Cupping Therapy, PLOS One

Conclusion of the systematic review: "Numerous RCTs on cupping therapy have been conducted and published during the past decades. This review showed that cupping has potential effect in the treatment of herpes zoster and other specific conditions. However, further rigorously designed trials on its use for other conditions are warranted."

Proposal: Adjust the statement to more accurately reflect the findings of the systematic review by including its conclusion, which acknowledges both potential benefits and the need for further research. DiscipulusVirtutis (talk) 20:52, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't a good enough result/conclusion to suggest that the therapy has any benefits. The final sentence your chat robot has highlighted can be translated as "Please don't cut off our research funding, thanks." - Roxy the dog 21:41, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. When I consider the authors' affiliations, along with the fact that they really only say that more study is needed (as opposed to saying that a review of the literature shows efficacy), I'm not seeing a justification for updating the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which affiliations are you referring to? Are you questioning the integrity of the peer-review process of PLOS One journal? DiscipulusVirtutis (talk) 13:35, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There has long been a history of us taking extra care with sources written by authors who are members of academic departments in China that are devoted to the promotion of Chinese traditional medicine. This isn't a matter of editors here putting ourselves above the journal peer-review process, but a matter of taking due care. And in this case, it's a matter of not taking a source that talks about potential usefulness that will require more study, and making it sound like a source that claims that the usefulness has already been proven. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:09, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"This review showed that cupping has potential effect in the treatment of herpes zoster[.]"

Is this claim from a Q1 scientific journal systematic review being refuted?

I thought Wikipedia was meant to reflect peer-reviewed scientific literature, especially when it comes from systematic reviews and meta-analyses. DiscipulusVirtutis (talk) 13:34, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So lets wait till confirming reports show that there is something more than "potential effect" shall we? - Roxy the dog 13:38, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If potential benefits were observed by a systematic review from a high-impact scientific journal, it can definitely be inserted in a Wikipedia article.

Furthermore, the reference in question was already cited 2 times in the current article. DiscipulusVirtutis (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, potential benefits is journalspeak for "doesn't work" and in any case PLOS ONE is a weak journal, especially for WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims about an established form of quackery. Bon courage (talk) 15:16, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If no better arguments or proposals are brought to the discussion, the conclusion from the systematic review will have to be inserted to the current article to make it more neutral.

If other arguments or proposals are suggested, it may be reconsidered. DiscipulusVirtutis (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you read WP:IDHT, it will help you understand why nobody agrees with you. - Roxy the dog 17:20, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with "Make an effort to see their side of the debate, and work on finding points of agreement."

So can we have a constructive discussion? Can we agree on something? DiscipulusVirtutis (talk) 19:31, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have said "the conclusion from the systematic review will have to be inserted", implying that you are going to make an edit to which two other editors have objected, based only on your personal opinion that the two of us have not satisfied your demands. That is not how WP:CONSENSUS works. As we have both tried to explain to you, the source says only that there are "potential" benefits that have yet to be proven, and that more evidence would be needed in order to conclude that those benefits have been proven. That is not enough for a medical claim on Wikipedia. We do not mislead our readers by saying that maybe something will provide medical benefits, when there is not a medical consensus in the literature that this is a safe and effective medical treatment. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:16, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, WP:ECREE. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:43, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tryptofish Thank you for your response. That was a thoughtful and constructive comment—I appreciate it.

However, according to Karl Popper, science does not "prove" anything; it formulates conjectures and refutes theories. In this case, the burden of proof is on the other camp to provide a systematic review that refutes the claim that cupping therapy shows potential benefits for herpes zoster. Until such evidence emerges, it remains reasonable to include the claim in the article, as it is not based on a single study but on a systematic review, which synthesizes multiple studies demonstrating potential benefits for this condition.

And I look forward for a consensus; however, thus far, no effort has been made to engage in a compromise or to seriously address my concern in a substantive manner. DiscipulusVirtutis (talk) 02:42, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a consensus. Wikipedia shall not be including the weakly-sourced speculation you want. Bon courage (talk) 02:52, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have evidence for characterizing the cited PLOS One systematic review as being "weakly-sourced speculation"? And as a reminder, let's not forget that the source was already cited 2 times in the current Wikipedia article. It is already present. DiscipulusVirtutis (talk) 14:10, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. As another editor has observed WP:ECREE. The idea that this rubbish might have some benefit for (good grief) herpes zoster is novel speculation. Bon courage (talk) 14:32, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that the source is already cited on this page. It's cited in support of two sentences: Many reviews suggest there is insufficient scientific evidence to support the use of cupping techniques to combat relevant diseases and chronic pain. and The practice has been used in hospitals in China since the 1950s as a traditional Chinese medicine modality. I consider both of those uses of the source to be entirely appropriate (so no, I'm certainly not saying that the journal peer-review system should be rejected). These two statements are quite reasonably supported by what the source says. But to use this source to justify the first of those two sentences, and simultaneously a new sentence about cupping being potentially useful (for a viral disease, no less) is illogical.

As for consensus, there are now 4 editors who agree that the source should not be used in that way, and a single editor arguing in favor. This is not a matter of 4 editors refusing to engage. It's a matter of one editor who does not want to accept what the other 4 are patiently trying to explain. And we are not holding out for an unscientific "proof", but just for what the source material actually says. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:10, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tryptofish Again, thank you for your response.

Now, given this rigorous observation of the situation, I understand that, to include the claim previously discussed, more systematic reviews that explicitly conclude that "benefits were observed"—not just "potential benefits" nor that "more research would be needed"—are required.

However, the inclusion of the third sentence might have looked inconsistent at first glance, but in fact, highlights the narrowness of the first sentence, which seems to imply there are not even "potential benefits." By closely analyzing the first sentence and comparing it to the review, it is clear that the statement lacks the main nuances of the study.

Many reviews suggest there is insufficient scientific evidence to support the use of cupping techniques to combat relevant diseases and chronic pain.

This sentence claims "many reviews" but directly cites only one. While multiple reviews exist, the wording does not specify them. Additionally, this statement does not fully reflect the results and conclusions of An Updated Review of the Efficacy of Cupping Therapy by Cao et al. (2012). Here is what the review states:

RESULTS: 135 RCTs published from 1992 through 2010 were identified. The studies were generally of low methodological quality. Wet cupping was used in most trials, followed by retained cupping, moving cupping, and flash cupping. Meta-analysis showed cupping therapy combined with other TCM treatments was significantly superior to other treatments alone in increasing the number of cured patients in certain conditions. No serious adverse effects were reported in the trials.

CONCLUSIONS: 135 RCTs published from 1992 through 2010 were identified. The studies were generally of low methodological quality. Diseases for which cupping therapy was commonly applied were herpes zoster, facial paralysis (Bell palsy), cough and dyspnea, acne, lumbar disc herniation, and cervical spondylosis. Wet cupping was used in most trials, followed by retained cupping, moving cupping, and flash cupping. Meta-analysis showed cupping therapy combined with other TCM treatments was significantly superior to other treatments alone in increasing the number of cured patients with herpes zoster, facial paralysis, acne, and cervical spondylosis. No serious adverse effects were reported in the trials.

Given the full scope of this review, how might this sentence be refined to more accurately reflect the conclusions of the cited literature? DiscipulusVirtutis (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "many reviews" arises from the fact that Cao et al. are, in effect, doing a review of reviews. In deciding how to deal with where the authors wrote "significantly superior", we also need to consider that they said "generally of low methodological quality" and were comparing <cupping+other TCM> versus <other TCM>, which is not the same as <cupping alone>. Rather than trying to decide this ourselves, we should look to see what the authors themselves said. I looked at the paper, and I see the Results subsection of the Abstract, that says what you quote here. But I cannot find any Conclusions that matches what you say here, so I'm not sure where you got that. The actual Conclusions that I see say:

CONCLUSIONS: Numerous RCTs on cupping therapy have been conducted and published during the past decades. This review showed that cupping has potential effect in the treatment of herpes zoster and other specific conditions. However, further rigorously designed trials on its use for other conditions are warranted.

That's the language we already discussed earlier. So the authors decided, based on the statistics, not to say that the treatment was found to be effective, only that it merits further study. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tryptofish I am sorry, I genuinely didn't see that. I think I mixed up some parts of the results with the concluding part of the discussion when writing my last response.

Thank you for pointing that.

Here is the actual quote from the discussion:

Finally, our meta-analysis revealed that cupping therapy combined with other treatments, such as acupuncture or medications, showed significant benefit over other treatments alone in effecting a cure for herpes zoster, acne, facial paralysis, and cervical spondylosis. This appears to support the common practice in China of combining TCM therapeutic modalities, either TCM with TCM, or TCM with routine western medicine, to enhance efficacy. The effect of cupping therapy over time is not known, but use of cupping is generally safe based on long-term clinical application and outcomes reported in the reviewed trials.

In conclusion, the results of this systematic review suggest that cupping therapy appears to be effective for various diseases/conditions, in particular herpes zoster, acne, facial paralysis, and cervical spondylosis. However, the main limitation of our analysis was that nearly all included trials were evaluated as high risk of bias. As such, it is necessary to conduct further RCTs that are of high quality and larger sample sizes in order to draw a definitive conclusion.

Regarding the phrase many reviews, I see your point that Cao et al. are conducting a review of reviews.

As for significantly superior, I fully agree that this needs to be contextualized alongside their statement about low methodological quality. However, my concern remains that the current sentence in the article does not reflect the nuance of the study’s findings. While the review does not claim conclusive effectiveness, it also does not dismiss cupping therapy outright. Instead, it acknowledges potential effects while emphasizing the need for more rigorous trials.

Do you see my point?

The statement "Many reviews suggest there is insufficient scientific evidence to support the use of cupping techniques to combat relevant diseases and chronic pain." does not accurately represent the conclusion of the systematic review which is:

Numerous RCTs on cupping therapy have been conducted and published during the past decades. This review showed that cupping has potential effect in the treatment of herpes zoster and other specific conditions. However, further rigorously designed trials on its use for other conditions are warranted.

I'm not sure what the intent was behind the wording of this statement, but it seems like an unusual way to use a source—citing it without summarizing its actual conclusion.

The exact terms relevant diseases and chronic pain are not even present in the review, which is surprising.

However, by consulting it again, I found another review the authors did in 2010 which was not cited by the Wikipedia article, but seems to have been used by the original editor of the statement.

Clinical research evidence of cupping therapy in China: a systematic literature review, BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies

Maybe the source was not added—or removed subsequently—as the term "Complementary Medicine" is not well-regarded by many editors of this encyclopedia.

Here is the quote:

This review suggests that there is insufficient high-quality evidence to support the use of cupping therapy on relevant diseases. Although quite a number of clinical studies reported that cupping therapy may have effect on pain conditions, herpes zoster, symptoms of cough and asthma, acne, common cold, or other common diseases. The current evidence is not sufficient to allow recommendation for clinical use of cupping therapy for the treatment of above diseases of any etiology in people of any age group. The long-term effect of cupping therapy is not known, but use of cupping is generally safe based on long term clinical use and reports from the reviewed clinical studies.

I suggest that the source be added after the statement.

Nevertheless, this is from their previous review. In comparison, the updated review did not reiterate their conclusion that there is insufficient high-quality evidence to support the use of cupping therapy on relevant diseases, instead, they concluded that cupping has potential effect in the treatment of herpes zoster and other specific conditions, which is a substantive departure and indicates a progression of conclusions across successive systematic reviews.

Considering the information I have presented, could we find a proposal that does not simply reaffirm the status quo of the article, but actually enhance its quality and precision?

Thank you, DiscipulusVirtutis (talk) 11:43, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies is not a usable journal for this; sources need to be WP:FRIND. Bon courage (talk) 13:36, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bon courage Interesting, so it makes me wonder: is it you who may have deleted the reference from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies in the first section, but let the statement as it is right now? DiscipulusVirtutis (talk) 19:00, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DiscipulusVirtutis, please be careful about quoting accurately, in the future. At this point, I'm really not seeing any good reason to keep discussing this. Four editors agree, and at this point, I feel like you are asking us to consider one part of the source and not another, and to consider an earlier publication by the same authors while partially disregarding what the authors wrote most recently. I'm all in favor of "enhanc[ing] [the page's] quality and precision". But that does not mean focusing just on some parts of a source to make a point, when the source in its entirety does not support doing so. In my opinion, we have reached the point where it is time to WP:Drop the stick. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but I still hope that Wikipedia will strive to align more closely with reputable encyclopedias rather than drifting toward a mainstream, "refined" version of RationalWiki. Upholding a strong commitment to comprehensive scholarship is crucial for preserving the nuanced perspectives necessary for a well-rounded and informative discourse.

That being said, I was genuinely surprised to witness editors with over 10,000 contributions engaging in disrespectful behavior. As someone relatively new to Wikipedia in terms of edits, I have made every effort to remain as polite and constructive as possible while presenting my arguments—though I confess that, sometimes, I went too far to prove a point. It is difficult to see how newcomers could be encouraged to engage with the community when experienced editors resort to dismissive or inappropriate communication.

Sincerely, DiscipulusVirtutis (talk) 21:22, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The deck (i.e. evidence-based medicine) is stacked very much against taking cupping therapy seriously. Newbies should seek other articles, wherein their edits are not regarded as not done, by default. The strategy of attacking articles for which the deck is stacked spells failure, and thus disillusionment. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Still, regardless of the scientific consensus, no editor—especially experienced ones—has the right to behave in an uncivil or dismissive manner. Constructive dialogue and respectful engagement should always be upheld, even in contentious discussions. DiscipulusVirtutis (talk) 22:52, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can remember when I was a new editor, so I understand what you mean. Part of this is, from a more experienced editor's standpoint, that over the rather large number of Wikipedia pages where we cover non-mainstream healthcare topics, there is a near-constant inflow of newish editors who complain that we are being unfair to other cultural traditions, when in fact what we are trying to do is to adhere to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, that require that we not mislead readers into thinking unproven claims about health have actually been proven, because that can do real harm to real people. After a while, it gets exhausting, and that makes it easy to get a bit snippy when it happens yet again. I agree that you have been polite, and I'm glad that you are self-reflecting about how you have approached this discussion. Editing here is a learning process. And, with that, I hope that we can regard this particular discussion as closed. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, when I see such threads, I ask myself: it is a genuine newbie or just another WP:SOCK? Since WP:FRINGE POV-pushers can be pretty insistent, and come back to haunt our articles long after they have been banned from Wikipedia. I'm not saying that DiscipulusVirtutis is a sock, just that it would be possible. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:08, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu I had not planned to comment again, but since you have raised concerns about WP:SOCK, I feel the need to be transparent with my situation. I originally created my first Wikipedia account back in 2011—it currently has 63 edits—but I used my real name at the time. Many years later, I recognized the importance of maintaining anonymity online, partly to avoid potential scrutiny from employers, especially since I sometimes explore deeply personal topics. Because of this, I no longer use that first account. DiscipulusVirtutis (talk) 14:13, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

However, according to Karl Popper, science does not "prove" anything; it formulates conjectures and refutes theories. In this case, the burden of proof is on the other camp to provide a systematic review that refutes the claim that cupping therapy shows potential benefits for herpes zoster. No, no, no, you have totally misunderstood Popper. This is about measuring the value of "effect of cupping in the treatment of herpes zoster". It is impossible to prove that that effect is zero - at most you can prove that the effect is within an epsilon interval around zero. So, the default value is zero, and the burden of proof is on the side of those who claim that it is not zero. They have to falsify the null hypothesis. See Falsifiability.

Everybody here understands science better than you do. Read WP:1AM. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:49, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Hob. I genuinely appreciated the beginning of your response—it was insightful, and the point about the necessity of falsifying the null hypothesis is something I was, indeed, not fully aware. That was a valuable clarification. However, it’s unfortunate that you ended it with a personal attack.

I’d like to take this response as a great example to highlight something for all the editors who has participated in this discussion. It’s clear that we approach these topics with different worldviews. From what I gather, many of you strongly identify as skeptics committed to combating pseudoscience, alternative medicine, and conspiracy theories on Wikipedia—a noble and important mission. However, if you truly want to make your work more effective (and reduce unnecessary conflict), improving skills in communication, diplomacy, and pedagogy would be highly beneficial. I don't think that personal attacks and subtle insinuations that fellow editors—who may not always share your views—are ‘less educated in science’ serve your cause very well. In fact, they probably do the opposite: they push people further into opposing perspectives, reinforcing divisions rather than fostering understanding. It’s akin to a science teacher mocking art students for their lack of scientific knowledge—such an approach does not build bridges, it burns them.

This message is particularly directed at @Roxy the dog, @Bon courage, @Tgeorgescu, and @Hob Gadling. On the other hand, I want to acknowledge @Tryptofish for maintaining both intellectual rigor and civility throughout the discussion.

If you want to gain allies in this effort, focus on educating with respect rather than confronting with hostility.

Sincerely, DiscipulusVirtutis (talk) 15:31, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know why I'm pinged here. In general, it's bad if editors start promoting their own antiscience views on Wikipedia (or its Talk pages). The Project is better off without that. Telling other editors that science is the disproof of hypotheses is so utterly backward I am starting to suspect trolling. Bon courage (talk) 15:39, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That was a great example of good diplomacy. Thank you Bon courage. DiscipulusVirtutis (talk) 15:42, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks."

—Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge (1963)

Following your logic, you think Karl Popper was "utterly backward"? DiscipulusVirtutis (talk) 15:53, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't practice the scientific method at Wikipedia. Instead, we render established knowledge from mainstream science and mainstream medicine. See WP:DUE, WP:PSCI and WP:FRINGE.

If you seek to improve the public image of views broadly rejected by mainstream science, this is not the place for doing it. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:02, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should have just pointed out the mistake made by your fellow skeptic editor Bon courage. He said: Telling other editors that science is the disproof of hypotheses is so utterly backward, which is inaccurate. Instead, you drifted the argument towards Wikipedia practices.

Anyway, I am getting bored... I was just trying to build a bridge! I want to understand other worldviews. I respect your mission as long as you respect other editors. Have a nice day! DiscipulusVirtutis (talk) 16:16, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have to earn respect. - Roxy the dog 16:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is Wikipedia. We do not want bridges between science and bollocks here. Please do it somewhere else. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:48, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are getting Popper utterly backward. Even in your quote, he talks about attempting to falsify hypotheses. If the hypothesis is good, there is no "disproof", and that is the normal situation. Can you please get philosophy of science explained to you somewhere else? This is not a forum, and you are not far away from getting banned for being WP:NOTHERE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:48, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found the first half of your contribution so boring that I did not read the rest. You are WP:SEALIONing, and that does not work here either. Please do it somewhere else. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:48, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to say this primarily to the experienced editors here, who should know better, then I'm going to close this. In my opinion, DV began this discussion with a proposal that was unscientific and contrary to our policies and guidelines, and pushed for it longer than was advisable. On the other hand, they also said "I confess that, sometimes, I went too far to prove a point", while agreeing to drop the stick. That should have been that. This is Wikipedia, not some online social media swamp. Some of you have, nonetheless, continued to poke at the topic, even though there was no longer any need to do so. You should have known better, and that's on you. I said earlier that I remember what it was like when I was a new editor, and subsequent discussion here has mentioned the tendency to suspect socking. Well, here is something that a then-administrator (no longer alive) directed at me when I was a new editor: [1]. There's a reason WP:AGF is a guideline. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]