The study calculated a required sample size of 37 using G*Power (Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany), but only 36 participants were analyzed. No justification was provided for this discrepancy, nor was an intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis mentioned. It would be beneficial for the authors to clarify whether the discrepancy resulted from participant dropout, recruitment issues, or other unforeseen factors. Additionally, implementing an ITT analysis could help ensure the validity of the findings by accounting for missing data.

The use of block randomization was appropriate, but key details regarding allocation concealment were omitted. Moreover, the absence of assessor blinding raises concerns about potential bias, especially in subjective assessments like the Neck Disability Index [2].

The intervention period of 6 weeks was relatively short, and the lack of long-term follow-up makes it difficult to assess whether the observed improvements were sustained over time [3].

Furthermore, both groups received active interventions, with the control group undergoing postural correction exercises. The inclusion of a true control group receiving no intervention or a sham procedure would have strengthened the study’s internal validity. Additionally, participant adherence and compliance with the intervention were not reported, which could influence outcomes.

The study employed lateral cervical X-rays and Kinovea software (https://www.kinovea.org/) for measuring cervical sagittal balance. However, no information was provided on intra- and inter-rater reliability. Given the clinical importance of these measurements, reliability testing should have been included. Kinovea, while useful, has limited validation against gold-standard radiographic methods [4].

Statistical analysis using two-way mixed-design multivariate analysis of variance was appropriate, but the authors did not report post-hoc corrections for multiple comparisons. While Cohen’s d was used to report effect sizes for some variables, it was inconsistently applied, making it difficult to gauge the true impact of the intervention.

Another limitation concerns the study population, which consisted of young adults aged 20–40 years. Since FHP affects individuals across different age groups, broader sampling would enhance the generalizability of findings.

Moreover, the study suggests a direct causal relationship between lumbopelvic control and FHP correction, yet it does not explore other potential influencing factors such as ergonomic habits, screen time, or muscular imbalances [5].

While the study provides useful insights, the concerns outlined above suggest a need for more careful interpretation of the results. Future studies should address these limitations by incorporating blinded assessments, long-term follow-ups, a true control group, and more rigorous statistical analyses. Strengthening these aspects will improve the reliability and applicability of research on FHP interventions. We appreciate the authors’ contributions and encourage to consider these points in future studies to further advance our understanding of FHP rehabilitation.