User:Situ.k/sandbox

Cupping therapy is an ancient form of alternative medicine that treats a broad range of medical conditions. Cupping is used in more than 60 countries. Its usage dates back to as far as 1,550 B.C. There are different forms of cupping; the most common are dry, wet, and fire cupping. Cups are applied onto the skin and a suction is created, pulling the skin up. It is meant to increase blood flow to certain areas to the body. Cupping has been characterized as a pseudoscience. Early research showed that cupping had very few health benefits, and there are some risks of harm, especially from fire and wet cupping.

History
For over 3,000 years, the practice has been typically performed unsupervised, by individuals without any medical background. Iranian traditional medicine uses wet-cupping practices, with the belief that cupping with scarification may eliminate scar tissue, and cupping without scarification would cleanse the body through the organs. Individuals with a profound interest in the practice are typically very religious and seek "purification."

There is reason to believe the practice dates from as early as 3000 BC. The Ebers Papyrus, written c. 1550 BC and one of the oldest medical textbooks in the Western world, describes the Egyptians' use of cupping, while mentioning similar practices employed by Saharan peoples. In ancient Greece, Hippocrates (c. 400 BC) used cupping for internal disease and structural problems. The method was highly recommended by Muhammad and hence well-practiced by Muslim scientists who elaborated and developed the method further. Consecutively, this method in its multiple forms spread into medicine throughout Asian and European civilizations. In China, the earliest use of cupping that is recorded is from the famous Taoist alchemist and herbalist, Ge Hong (281–341 A.D.). Cupping was also mentioned in Maimonides' book on health and was used within the Eastern European Jewish community.

Effectiveness
Cupping is poorly supported by scientific evidence, with a 2014 review of recent evidence finding that "because of the unreasonable design and poor research quality, the clinical evidence of cupping therapy is very low." A 2011 review found that "the effectiveness of cupping is currently not well-documented for most conditions", and that systematic reviews showing efficacy for the treatment of pain "were based mostly on poor quality primary studies." The American Cancer Society notes that "available scientific evidence does not support claims that cupping has any health benefits" and also that the treatment carries a small risk of burns.

In their 2008 book Trick or Treatment, Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst write that no evidence exists of any beneficial effects of cupping for any medical condition. Critics of alternative medicine such as Harriet Hall and Mark Crislip have characterized cupping as "pseudoscience nonsense", "a celebrity fad", and "gibberish", and observed that there is no evidence that cupping works any better than a placebo. Pharmacologist David Colquhoun writes that cupping is "laughable... and utterly implausible." Practicing surgeon David Gorski observes, "...it’s all risk for no benefit. It has no place in modern medicine, or at least shouldn’t."

Even more recent studies have stated that regarding cupping therapy, "Further studies are required to improve the understanding and potential long-term effects of CT." Despite the cost-effectiveness of cupping therapy, clinicians should consider clinical evidence when making decisions regarding the effectiveness of cupping therapy.

A 2018 study explored the possibilities behind the effects of cupping therapy. It stated that the effects could be explained by a number of theories such as the Gate control theory, Reflexology, Nitric Oxide Theory, and detoxification. However, none of these explain the effects of cupping therapy in its entirety and more research is required to explain the whole effects.

Safety
While ineffective, cupping is generally safe when applied by trained professionals on people who are otherwise healthy. Cupping may result in bruising, burns, pain, and/or skin infection, and is not recommended for people with health problems due to side effects. In 2016, the Cambodian Ministry of Health warned that cupping could be a health risk and particularly dangerous for people with high blood pressure or heart problems.

Research suggests that cupping is harmful, especially in people who are thin or obese: According to Jack Raso (1997), cupping results in capillary expansion, excessive fluid accumulation in tissues, and the rupture of blood vessels.

Cupping therapy adverse events can be divided into local and systemic adverse events. The local adverse events were scar formation, burns, skin infection, panniculitis, abscess formation, pain at the cupping site, and systemic adverse events including: anemia, dizziness, vasovagal attack, insomnia, headaches, and nausea.

Fire cupping can sometimes result in minor to severe burns at the cupping site, and may lead to hospitalization and may even require skin grafting to repair the injury. Other burns can also occur due to carelessness with the flammable substances being used, such as spills and over application.

EVALUATION

Content


 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Everything is related to the article. What distracted me was the focus on the history of cupping. Also the wet cupping section where it includes the Muslim tidbit was distracting. It does pertain to wet cupping, but not in the way that I expected.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * I think that more recent studies could be added because there has been more research done on cupping therapy, so the perception of cupping therapy could change with new research. It could stay the same with newer studies, solidifying the current claim of the ineffectiveness of cupping.
 * What else could be improved?
 * I would change the overall flow of the article. Having the history section at the bottom seems very odd since we generally give people background information first to inform the reader what exactly they are reading.

Tone


 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * I would say that the article is neutral. There is no claim that isn't supported by a citation
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I would say that the claim that cupping therapy is ineffective is the most common viewpoint in terms of does cupping therapy work. It is hard to say because I don't think that an article need a lot of citations/references that say that same point. There needs to be a balance between getting to the point and supporting it with the necessary evidence.

Sources


 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * The links work and the sources do support what was written in the article.
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * Some of these facts are not referenced with a citation. Not of the citations are from a scholarly article. Some are from websites that may or may not seem biased since they aren't scholarly websites.

Talk

Now take a look at how others are talking about this article on the talk page.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There has been discussion over the biases of cupping. Most come from the cupping history especially from China and its role in Islam. However those comments were made over 10 years ago.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It is rated as a start article. It is part of China,, Alternative Medicine, physiology, and skepticism.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?