We read with great interest the recently published 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” in the Asian Spine Journal (July 2025) [1]. This study addresses a timely and relevant clinical question, particularly given the increasing prevalence of forward head posture (FHP) and mechanical neck pain (MNP) in the modern sedentary population. The authors’ approach to evaluating the immediate effects of posture correction taping on pain, range of motion (ROM), and muscle activation provides valuable insights that could potentially inform physiotherapy practice.

While the study is valuable, we would like to highlight certain concerns related to its reporting, based on the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) guidelines. Firstly, while the introduction conveys the background and rationale well, specific study objectives or hypotheses are not clearly stated, which limits the precision of the study’s scope [2].

Secondly, in the methodology section, although the study is described as a randomized controlled trial, the trial type (e.g., parallel, superiority, exploratory) is not clearly specified, and the authors fail to distinguish between primary and secondary outcomes, which is essential for transparency and reproducibility. Additionally, no prior sample size calculation is reported, making it difficult to determine whether the study was adequately powered to detect meaningful differences [3]. While block randomization with opaque envelopes was mentioned, critical details such as block size, who generated the random sequence, and who enrolled participants are missing, raising concerns about potential selection bias. Moreover, although the outcome assessor was blinded for certain measures, there is no clarification regarding blinding of participants, therapists, or data analysts, nor acknowledgment of the implications of partial blinding.

Thirdly, the flow diagram (Fig. 1 of [1]) indicates the number of randomized participants, but losses to follow-up or handling of missing data are not described. Moreover, effect sizes with confidence intervals (CIs) are inconsistently reported, and harms or adverse events were not addressed. Additionally, in Table 2 (cervical ROM) and Table 3 (EMG activity) of [1], the reported mean differences (MDs) are inconsistent with the baseline and post-treatment values [4]. For example, cervical extension increased from 59.45° to 61.59° in the taping group, indicating an improvement. The correct MD (post–baseline) should therefore be +2.14, yet the table presents it as –2.13 (95% CI, –3.30 to –0.96). Similar inconsistencies are seen in the middle trapezius values in Table 3 of [1]. These sign errors are important because they alter the interpretation of whether the intervention improved or worsened the outcomes. Also, there is no mention of funding sources.

In conclusion, this article provides valuable insights into the immediate effects of posture correction taping for individuals with FHP and MNP. We appreciate the authors’ contribution and recognize the value of their clinical. The authors’ rigorous work and the editor’s decision to publish this informative article are deeply appreciated. Thank you for your significant contribution to advancing research in this important area.