Dear Editor,
We have read the recent article “Evaluation of the association between neck pain and the trapezius muscles in patients with cervical myelopathy using motor evoked potential: a retrospective study” with great interest and appreciate the information provided [
1]. We agree with most of what has been written in the article. The study explained the effect of the motor-evoked potential of the trapezius muscle in patients with neck pain and the association between neck pain and the trapezius muscle in patients with cervical myelopathy. While agreeing with what has been detailed, we wish to highlight what the literature search brings forth about a few things.
First, we would like to appreciate the researcher for clearly and concisely describing the informative and interesting introduction part. It enhances our interest in studying more about neck pain and its association with the trapezius muscle in patients with cervical myelopathy using the motor-evoked potential, it helps us to become aware of the new information about the motor-evoked potential. The study shows that the stability of cervical vertebrae and the neck extensor muscles are important in the prevention of bending and rotation, which the reader can easily comprehend. In this scientific research, the introduction part was lacking the hypothesis of this study.
Secondly, in the literature method and material section, there was no information about how to calculate the sample size for the research. In this scientific literature, the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the participants were not mentioned clearly. According to several studies, it is recommended to consider age and gender specifications when recruiting participants, as the aging process can lead to wear and tear of cervical ligaments. However, this study lacks literature discussing the area of neck pain (whether bilateral or unilateral), the stage of myelopathy, paraesthesia, and body mass index, as these factors can contribute to increased neck pain [
2,
3]. Furthermore, the study fails to specify exclusion criteria, and there is a lack of reference in the measurement section.
Third, in the results section, there was a lack of assessment of data normality, and even duplication of data was observed [
4]. Moreover, this research article did not clearly address confounding factors for latency, amplitude, and cross-sectional area.