Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Review Report

Based on my review, this narrative review makes a valuable contribution to the literature on chronic cough in children by synthesizing current knowledge on the potential role of eosinophil cationic protein (ECP) as a biomarker.   The review is well-organized, starting with an introduction on chronic cough and the need for biomarkers, before focusing on ECP and its immunological mechanisms and relationship with IgE. The authors then systematically summarize previous studies investigating ECP levels in children with chronic cough.   The review is comprehensive in describing the current understanding of ECP's biological activities, utility as an inflammatory marker, and limitations. Relevant references are appropriately cited to support key points.  The scientific rationale linking ECP to chronic cough pathophysiology is sound, though the authors rightly point out the need for more pediatric validation. Limitations of ECP as a diagnostic biomarker are acknowledged.   The writing is clear, readable, and free of errors. The authors thoughtfully derive clinical insights from the reviewed literature to highlight future research directions. 

The writing is clear, straightforward, and easy to understand. The authors use proper grammar, punctuation, and sentence structure throughout. The language flows well and ideas are communicated effectively. Technical terms are explained clearly and overall the text is very readable even to a non-specialist audience. There are no obvious errors in spelling, grammar, word usage or syntax. Sentence structure is varied and concise. The language used is appropriate for a scientific review publication.

In conclusion, this is a well-executed narrative review synthesizing current evidence on ECP as a chronic cough biomarker in children. The authors recognize limitations and knowledge gaps to be addressed through further research. The review makes a meaningful contribution to this developing area.

Author Response

Based on my review, this narrative review makes a valuable contribution to the literature on chronic cough in children by synthesizing current knowledge on the potential role of eosinophil cationic protein (ECP) as a biomarker. The review is well-organized, starting with an introduction on chronic cough and the need for biomarkers, before focusing on ECP and its immunological mechanisms and relationship with IgE. The authors then systematically summarize previous studies investigating ECP levels in children with chronic cough. The review is comprehensive in describing the current understanding of ECP's biological activities, utility as an inflammatory marker, and limitations. Relevant references are appropriately cited to support key points.  The scientific rationale linking ECP to chronic cough pathophysiology is sound, though the authors rightly point out the need for more pediatric validation. Limitations of ECP as a diagnostic biomarker are acknowledged.   The writing is clear, readable, and free of errors. The authors thoughtfully derive clinical insights from the reviewed literature to highlight future research directions.

• We express our sincere gratitude to the reviewer for the thoughtful and constructive feedback on our narrative review, titled "Exploring Eosinophil Cationic Protein (ECP) as a Biomarker in Chronic Cough among Children." We are pleased to receive acknowledgment of the value and contribution our review makes to the literature on this important topic.
• We appreciate the reviewer's positive assessment of the organization and clarity of our manuscript. It is encouraging to hear that the introduction, focusing on the necessity of biomarkers in chronic cough, followed by the detailed exploration of ECP and its immunological mechanisms, was well-received. The acknowledgement of the comprehensive coverage of previous studies on ECP in children with chronic cough and the recognition of the scientific rationale linking ECP to pathophysiology are particularly gratifying.
• We acknowledge the reviewer's keen observation of our recognition of limitations and the need for further pediatric validation. This reflects our commitment to scientific rigor and our intent to guide future research directions in this evolving field. It is reassuring to know that our effort to derive clinically relevant insights from the literature and present them thoughtfully has been appreciated.

The writing is clear, straightforward, and easy to understand. The authors use proper grammar, punctuation, and sentence structure throughout. The language flows well and ideas are communicated effectively. Technical terms are explained clearly and overall the text is very readable even to a non-specialist audience. There are no obvious errors in spelling, grammar, word usage or syntax. Sentence structure is varied and concise. The language used is appropriate for a scientific review publication.

• We are delighted that the reviewer found our writing style to be clear, readable, and free of errors. We invested considerable effort in ensuring that the language flows smoothly, even for a non-specialist audience. We are particularly grateful for the positive remarks regarding proper grammar, punctuation, and sentence structure.

In conclusion, this is a well-executed narrative review synthesizing current evidence on ECP as a chronic cough biomarker in children. The authors recognize limitations and knowledge gaps to be addressed through further research. The review makes a meaningful contribution to this developing area.

• We wholeheartedly accept the reviewer's positive evaluation of our narrative review. We are committed to addressing any additional suggestions or concerns, and we believe that the insights provided by this review will contribute significantly to the ongoing discourse on the role of ECP as a biomarker in chronic cough among children. Thank you once again for your valuable feedback and support.

Reviewer 2 Report

Review of the manuscript ID sinusitis-2666877: “The role of eosinophilic cation protein and immunoglobulin E in chronic cough in children”

It was a great pleasure for me to review this manuscript.

Although the manuscript is interesting, there is still room for improvement before it will be suitable for acceptance for publication.

Here are some suggestions for improvement:

Consider making the title more specific. It is very broad, and a more focused title would give readers a clearer idea of the content of the paper. Formulating an effective title is crucial to attracting readers and making the focus of your manuscript clear. Here are some suggested titles to match the content of your manuscript:

Eosinophilic cationic protein and immunoglobulin E: unravelling biomarkers in chronic paediatric cough.

The role of eosinophilic cationic protein and IgE in chronic cough in paediatrics: a comprehensive review.

Eosinophilic cationic protein and immunoglobulin E in chronic cough: pediatric insights and biomarker potential.

Introduction

The introduction provides a good overview of chronic cough, but could be more concise. Consider shortening some sentences to increase clarity. Clarify the aim of the review in the introduction. It may be helpful to explicitly state the aim of the review earlier in the introduction.

Search strategy

The search strategy section is comprehensive and provides transparency in the research process. Consider adding specific dates or a time frame for the literature search to clarify the timeliness of the studies included.

Studies on ECP and chronic cough in children

The inclusion of a table is a good idea. Consider discussing the limitations of the studies summarized.

ECP and chronic cough in adults

This section provides a good transition from children to adults. Consider highlighting any significant differences or similarities between pediatric and adult studies.

Conclusions

The conclusion is effective in summarizing the main points. Consider adding a sentence about the limitations of the review and potential areas for future research.

Style and language

Ensure consistent terminology and formatting throughout the manuscript. Some sentences are quite complex. Consider breaking them down for clarity.

Ensure consistent formatting of citations and references. Check references for accuracy and completeness. Some of the sources cited in the text include the year, others do not. This should be consistent according to the rules of the journal. In line 182, the author's surname Dogig is incorrect (Dodig is correct); this must be corrected. The list of references must be standardised and the rules of the journal in which the work is applied must be respected.

Author Response

It was a great pleasure for me to review this manuscript.

• We would like to express our gratitude to Reviewer 2 for the insightful and constructive feedback on our manuscript titled "Exploring Eosinophil Cationic Protein (ECP) as a Biomarker in Chronic Cough among Children." We appreciate the time and effort invested in the review process, and we have carefully considered each suggestion to enhance the manuscript's overall quality.

Although the manuscript is interesting, there is still room for improvement before it will be suitable for acceptance for publication.

Here are some suggestions for improvement:

Consider making the title more specific. It is very broad, and a more focused title would give readers a clearer idea of the content of the paper. Formulating an effective title is crucial to attracting readers and making the focus of your manuscript clear. Here are some suggested titles to match the content of your manuscript:

Eosinophilic cationic protein and immunoglobulin E: unravelling biomarkers in chronic paediatric cough.

The role of eosinophilic cationic protein and IgE in chronic cough in paediatrics: a comprehensive review.

Eosinophilic cationic protein and immunoglobulin E in chronic cough: pediatric insights and biomarker potential.

• We acknowledge the suggestion to refine the title for better clarity and focus. Following your recommendations, we have revised the title to align more closely with the content of the manuscript. The proposed titles provided valuable insights, and we have chosen one that encapsulates the essence of our review: "Eosinophilic cationic protein and immunoglobulin E: unravelling biomarkers in chronic paediatric cough"

Introduction

The introduction provides a good overview of chronic cough, but could be more concise. Consider shortening some sentences to increase clarity. Clarify the aim of the review in the introduction. It may be helpful to explicitly state the aim of the review earlier in the introduction.

• We appreciate the feedback regarding the introduction's length and clarity. To enhance conciseness and explicitly state the aim, we have revised the introduction, ensuring a more streamlined and purposeful presentation. The aim of the review is now clarified at the outset for improved reader orientation.

Search strategy

The search strategy section is comprehensive and provides transparency in the research process. Consider adding specific dates or a time frame for the literature search to clarify the timeliness of the studies included.

• Your suggestion to add specific dates or a time frame to the search strategy for transparency has been duly noted. We have incorporated this recommendation to provide a clearer understanding of the timeliness of the studies included.

Studies on ECP and chronic cough in children

The inclusion of a table is a good idea. Consider discussing the limitations of the studies summarized.

• We acknowledge the suggestion to discuss the limitations of the studies summarized. In response, we have included a section addressing the limitations of the studies, if they were available and stated in the cited papers, providing readers with a more comprehensive perspective.

ECP and chronic cough in adults

This section provides a good transition from children to adults. Consider highlighting any significant differences or similarities between pediatric and adult studies.

• We appreciate your observation on the need to highlight significant differences or similarities between pediatric and adult studies in the relevant section. In response, we have expanded upon this aspect, providing a more explicit comparison to underscore the nuances and commonalities between two populations, when available in the literature. This additional information aims to enrich the discussion and offer a more comprehensive understanding of ECP's role in chronic cough across age groups.

Conclusions

The conclusion is effective in summarizing the main points. Consider adding a sentence about the limitations of the review and potential areas for future research.

• Following your suggestion, we have added a sentence addressing the limitations of the review and potential areas for future research in the conclusion section.

Style and language

Ensure consistent terminology and formatting throughout the manuscript. Some sentences are quite complex. Consider breaking them down for clarity.

• We recognize the importance of consistent terminology, formatting, and clear sentence structures. We have meticulously revised the manuscript to ensure uniformity in terminology and formatting. Complex sentences have been rephrased for improved clarity and readability.

Ensure consistent formatting of citations and references. Check references for accuracy and completeness. Some of the sources cited in the text include the year, others do not. This should be consistent according to the rules of the journal. In line 182, the author's surname Dogig is incorrect (Dodig is correct); this must be corrected. The list of references must be standardised and the rules of the journal in which the work is applied must be respected.

• We sincerely appreciate your meticulous review of our citations and references. Corrections have been made to ensure the accuracy and completeness of references, including the correction of the author's surname (from Dogig to Dodig) in line 182. We usually include the year of the study along with first author`s name if the study is recent. We have standardized the list of references in accordance with the journal's rules.
• We believe these revisions significantly strengthen the manuscript, addressing the concerns raised by the reviewer. We remain committed to meeting the highest standards for publication, and we appreciate the guidance provided to enhance the overall quality of our work. Thank you for your valuable feedback.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Since the authors have clearly stated all my concerns and accepted most of my comments, it is fair to accept this revised version of the manuscript for publication in the Sinusitis.

With best wishes,