Hype against randomized trials for one topic, computed and dated 30 October 2026. It rates the topic, never a person, and gives no dosing and no sourcing.
The short version
141Kyearly wiki viewsEnglish Wikipedia, to 30 Sep 2026
16randomized-trial paperstyped on PubMed
8,799views per trial paperlower is better backed
Hype is running aheadthe verdictby the published rule
Gua sha
Hype is running ahead
8,799yearly views per trial paper
hype141K views a yearproof16 trial papers
Trials exist, but attention is far ahead of the record.
English Wikipedia readers opened the Gua sha article about 141K times in the year to 30 September 2026. PubMed holds 16 papers typed as randomized trials for it, which is 8,799 yearly views per trial paper. By the published rule that earns the verdict Hype is running ahead.
That is a statement about the gap between attention and trial record. It does not say whether Gua sha works or whether it is safe for anyone.
How does it compare with the others?
Gua sha next to the other fourhype above, proof below, read 30 October 2026
Top chart: attention. Bottom chart: randomized-trial papers typed on PubMed. The highlighted bar is Gua sha. A big top bar over a small bottom bar is what the meter reads as hype ahead of the trials.