Response to the letter to the editor - Immediate effects of posture correction taping on pain, cervical range of motion, and scapulothoracic muscle activity

Q: Why did the authors address power analysis for the current report?

They explained the study is part of a larger ongoing randomized controlled trial with an a priori sample size. Observed power was >0.95 for NPRS and specific EMG outcomes, while some other outcomes showed <0.80 power.

Q: What was the control strategy regarding sham taping?

The authors stated the study aimed to examine additional benefits of posture correction taping combined with exercise, not the independent effect of taping alone. They agreed that a sham taping group could help isolate independent effects.

Q: What limitations were noted about participant blinding and baseline cervical ROM?

Participants were aware of taping, preventing treatment blinding and potentially influencing subjective outcomes. They also reported near-normal baseline cervical range of motion, leaving limited room for measurable improvement.

Sep 29, 2026

Uploaded by Genevieve

Response letter addressing concerns raised about a published randomized controlled trial in individuals with forward head posture and mechanical neck pain. The authors explain that the report is part of a larger ongoing study, discuss observed power differences across outcomes, and clarify rationale for combining posture correction taping with exercise rather than testing taping alone. They note limitations related to absence of sham taping, inability to blind participants, near-normal baseline cervical range of motion, and comment on functional EMG assessment feasibility.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryHealthcare

FormatPDF

Pages2

Reading Time5 min

AccessFree to download

Letter to the Editor

Response and clarifications on study design and outcome power

Control condition, blinding limitations, and cervical ROM findings

Functional EMG assessment and concluding remarks

Letter to the Editor ASJ Asian Spine J. 2025;19(6): 1114-1115 [https://doi.org/10.31616/asj.2025.0587.r2](https://doi.org/10.31616/asj.2025.0587.r2)[ ](https://doi.org/10.31616/asj.2025.0587.r2)PISSN 1976-1902 • eISSN 1976-7846 Response to the letter to the editor: Immediate effects of posture correction taping on pain, cervical range of motion, and scapulothoracic muscle activity in individuals with forward head posture and mechanical neck pain: a randomized controlled trial in India Ganesh Balthillaya M1, Shyamasunder N. Bhat2, Shalini H1, Bhamini Krishna Rao1 1Department of Physiotherapy, Manipal College of Health Professions, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, India 2Department of Orthopaedics, Kasturba Medical College Manipal, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, India Received Oct 8, 2025; Accepted Nov 11, 2025 Corresponding author: Bhamini Krishna Rao Department of Physiotherapy, Manipal College of Health Professions, Manipal Academy of Higher Education (MAHE), Manipal, Karnataka, 576104 India Tel: +91-8660644145, Fax: +91-8202571915, E-mail: [bhamini.kr@manipal.edu](bhamini.kr@manipal.edu) Dear Editor, We would like to thank you for providing us with the opportunity to respond to the recent letter to the editor regarding our article titled “Immediate effects of posture correction taping on pain, cervical range of motion, and scapulothoracic muscle activity in individuals with forward head posture and mechanical neck pain: a randomized controlled trial in India.” We sincerely appreciate the authors’ efforts in reviewing our work and sharing their valuable opinions and suggestions. We would like to clarify that the current report is part of larger ongoing randomized controlled trial among individuals with forward head posture (FHP) and mechanical neck pain (MNP) for which a priori sample size calculated. However, we acknowledge the concern raised regarding the absence of power analysis for the current report. Observed power for Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), electromyogram (EMG) activity of upper trapezius and serratus anterior were greater than 0.95 and for cervical range of motion and EMG activity of middle trapezius, lower trapezius, pectoralis major clavicular head, pectoralis major ster- nal head were <0.80 indicating sample was powered enough for the NPRS, EMG activity of upper trapezius and serratus anterior and underpowered for other outcomes. We also recognize the concern about the absence of sham taping as a control condition. The current study aimed to examine the additional benefits of posture correction taping when combined with exercise interventions, rather than the independent effect of taping alone. However, we agree that including a sham taping control group could have been useful in isolating the independent effects of taping. We further acknowledge that participant blinding to the type of treatment could not be implemented, as participants were aware of the taping, which may have influenced subjective outcomes. We also agree with the author that the participants demonstrated near-normal baseline cervical range of motion, leaving limited scope for observable improvement in cervical range of motion, as discussed in discussion section [1] . We appreciate the authors’ suggestion to include EMG assessments under functional daily-life condi- Copyright Ⓒ 2025 by Korean Society of Spine Surgery This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License ([http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/)) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Asian Spine Journal • pISSN 1976-1902 eISSN 1976-7846 • [www.asianspinejournal.org](www.asianspinejournal.org) tions, such as during prolonged computer work which is beyond the scope of current study. Once aga

FAQs

Why did the authors address power analysis for the current report?

They explained the study is part of a larger ongoing randomized controlled trial with an a priori sample size. Observed power was >0.95 for NPRS and specific EMG outcomes, while some other outcomes showed <0.80 power.

What was the control strategy regarding sham taping?

The authors stated the study aimed to examine additional benefits of posture correction taping combined with exercise, not the independent effect of taping alone. They agreed that a sham taping group could help isolate independent effects.

What limitations were noted about participant blinding and baseline cervical ROM?

Participants were aware of taping, preventing treatment blinding and potentially influencing subjective outcomes. They also reported near-normal baseline cervical range of motion, leaving limited room for measurable improvement.

Sep 29, 2026

Uploaded by Genevieve