Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a very interesting study about an unfrequent and poorly recognized viral retinal disease with dramatic consequences if left untreated. I have no specific comments pertaining to this manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

However, the presented topic is interesting and important for ophthalmologists, the paper was not presented in a reader friendly way. In some paragraphs, the authors did not put references; tables are very long and hard to understand; the subjects did not characterize enough etc.; sample size calculation is needed. The discussion is poor.

In addition, the authors should have read the Journal's requirements before submit the paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

It would be nice to :

State if the clinical characteristics of slow and rapid responders differ.

State if a low dose of systemic steroid has been given and if it did influence the viral load.

Discuss on the fact that immunocompetent VZV group have a worse prognosis than immunosuppressed VZV group (?more aggressive treatment ?lower RD occurrence because of lesser vitritis) & on the 0% HSV1 (in comparison to the literature).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

It has to be recognized the critical effort made by the authors to improve the article. However, I still consider that some aspects justify not recommending its publication in the current state.

I agree with the authors that their paper is retrospective, but

a power calculation should have been done if this was a retrospective study.