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 [1].” We appreciate the authors’ efforts in reviewing our work and sharing their opinions and suggestions.

We would like to clarify that the objective of our study was to examine the immediate effects of posture correction taping on neck pain, neck range of motion (ROM), and scapulothoracic muscle activity in individuals with forward head posture and mechanical neck pain [1]. Since the study was designed to investigate preliminary effects, specific hypotheses were not stated. We acknowledge that the absence of clearly defined hypotheses may limit the precision of the study’s scope.

Because the trial was exploratory and focused on preliminary effects, we did not differentiate between primary and secondary outcomes. All outcomes were considered primary for the purpose of hypothesis generation.

Participants were randomly allocated into two groups—the taping group and the control group—through block randomization using a computer-generated, serially numbered, opaque envelope method [1]. To reduce selection bias, computer-generated random sequences with unequal block sizes (ranging from 4 to 8) were used.

We acknowledge the concerns raised regarding partial blinding. The outcome assessor was blinded to Numeric Pain Rating Scale scores and neck ROM measures but could not be blinded to electromyogram (EMG) activity. However, because EMG provides an objective measure of muscle activity, the risk of detection bias was minimal [2]. Participants and the data analyst were blinded to group allocation and type of intervention. The intervention provider (therapist) could not be blinded, given that the same therapist delivered interventions to both groups.

In total, 42 participants were recruited for the study. All participants completed baseline assessments, the first treatment session, and the post-intervention assessment (performed after 48 hours, before the second treatment session). There was no loss to follow-up at this stage.

The main results are presented in Tables 2 and 3 of [1]. Data were analyzed using SPSS ver. 16 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Mean differences (MD) and confidence intervals (CI) were obtained from paired t-test outputs. SPSS generated values to five decimal places, which were rounded to two decimal places in the results tables. This rounding may have caused minor discrepancies in MD and CI values at the second decimal place. MD were consistently calculated as baseline minus post-intervention values (baseline–post) for all variables. When post-intervention values were higher than baseline values, the MD appeared negative, which may have led to confusion during interpretation regarding whether the intervention improved or worsened outcomes. To address this, we clarified the calculation method in the table footnotes [1].

Regarding adverse events, no harms were reported by participants during the study period. This research received no specific grant from any funding agency, which we acknowledge should have been explicitly stated.

In conclusion, we thank the readers for their constructive feedback, which underscores the importance of rigorous trial reporting. Their observations will help guide improvements in the design and reporting of our future clinical studies.