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 sternal 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 conditions, such as during prolonged computer work which is beyond the scope of current study.

Once again, we thank the authors for their thoughtful and constructive comments.