Dermoscopy of Facial Dermatoses: An Updated Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

1. More detailed descriptions of the literature search methodology, including precise inclusion/exclusion criteria, date ranges, and number screened and included articles, are required to enhance transparency and reproducibility.
2. Standardize the use of important dermoscopic terms across the article to avoid confusion. Correct typographical errors such as "paĴern" to "pattern" and be accurate regarding the use of dermatological terminology.
3. Expand the clinical relevance of dermoscopic features by describing differential diagnoses for each subtype of facial dermatosis to aid clinicians with real-world application and distinction from analogous conditions.
4. Outline actual issues to widespread clinical use of dermoscopy (availability of instruments, training) and propose solutions to ease implementation into everyday dermatology practice.
5. Conduct a thorough proofreading of small grammatical and typographical mistakes, and go over paragraph structure and sentence flow to improve readability, clarity, and professionalism.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Conduct a thorough proofreading of small grammatical and typographical mistakes, and go over paragraph structure and sentence flow to improve readability, clarity, and professionalism.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your prompt and detailed review of our article.

Following your insightful comments, we have made several revisions to the manuscript:

1. Expanded the methodology section with detailed search strategy, inclusion criteria and date ranges.
2. Corrected typographical and terminological errors and improved grammar and readability.
3. To enhance clinical relevance, we added differential diagnoses for those facial dermatoses in which they were not previously distinguished.
4. Outlined practical issues limiting widespread dermoscopy use and proposed solutions for easier implementation.
5. Rephrased the sentence regarding the standardization of evaluating non-neoplastic dermatoses.

We hope that these changes meet the expectations of both the reviewers and the editorial team.

Thank you once again for your helpful review. Please note if any additional modifications are needed.

 

With best regards,

Nika Filipović Mioč and co-authors

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Congratulations on your paper. Here are my remarks:

-"One major barrier is the lack of standardization in dermoscopic assessment of non-neoplastic dermatoses"  - I disagree and I would rephrase this sentence. There's an IDS paper which standardises the assessment of non neoplastic dermatoses and most of the papers follow the following nomenclature in description of the inflammatory lesion - https://academic.oup.com/bjd/article-abstract/182/2/454/6753200?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false 

However I do agree that the metaphoric nomenclature might be confusing.

-I enjoyed the tables which summarise all the Dermatoscopic features

-In some cases you could add images and point out the dermatoscopic features that you mention in the text

-Otherwise I think it's a very comprehensive, well written paper

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your positive comments and supportive evaluation of our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate your time and constructive feedback.

As suggested, we have added a sentence to the text noting that there is an IDS paper which standardises the assessment of non neoplastic dermatoses. We believe this addition further supports the context and relevance of our study.

Unfortunately, in agreement with the Editors, the focus of this article was placed on summarizing the existing literature on this topic and presenting the data in table format. As a result, images had to be limited in order to maintain this structure and scope. However, we fully agree that additional images would enhance the educational value of the article, and we will certainly aim to prepare a similar paper in the future with a stronger emphasis on visual material.

Thank you once again for your kind review.

Best regards,

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All issues have been resolved