Reviewer response for version 1
Congratulations to the authors. 
Despite sporotrichosis remains a neglected disease in terms of research interest, funding and medical attention, to which the authors have made significant contributions. 
However, this study has several major observations:
Methods.
The literature search is limited to two databases. 
Fig. 1. 
Present a flow, and follow the guidelines of a scoping review.
MedLine / Pubmed and Abstracts of Scientific Conference should be reviewed.
There are several published studies on sporotrichosis in journals indexed in SCIELO, LiLACS, etc. 
These papers have not been included in the study.
I don’t think that this article contains enough robust data to evidence the implications for practice. 
The strategy and organization of the information about Implications for practice is not appropriate. 
A set of words related to tentative language is biased. 
Furthermore, only the abstracts have been reviewed. 
To evaluate the implications in practice, it is necessary to organize the different types of published studies: case series, observational study, clinical trials and systematic review, diagnostic test, etc. 
Furthermore, studies not related to the clinical practice of sporotrichosis should be excluded.
Results:
Paragraph 1. 
I suggest include in Results section include the statistical test.
Scientific production by hyperendemic areas of sporotrichosis should be presented.
Table 3. 
I suggest to make a comparison between Brazil, USA, Mexico, China, or hyperendymic areas of sporotrichosis.
The authors should include the different types of published articles: review, original, short communication, case reports, clinical trial, systematic, review, correspondece, Research Letters, etc.
Research trends. 
It would be interesting to know how these trends vary between Latin America. 
Europe and Asia.
Implications for practice
I suggest organizing the published studies: case series, observational study, clinical trials and systematic review, diagnostic test, etc. 
Although there are very few clinical trials and systematic reviews on sporotrichosis, this evidence should be presented in tables. 
Furthermore, studies not related to the clinical practice of sporotrichosis should be excluded.
Finally, sporotrichosis is not limited to dermatology.
Discussion
In the “Discussion” section I would have wished to see more information on implicance practic .
Limitations should be described and discussed such as: the number of databases included in the study, the studies were not classified, to differentiate the type of scientific evidence for clinical practice, etc.
Structure
Other
Strength
Structure
Structure
Weakness
Structure
Todo
Todo
Other
Weakness
Weakness
Weakness
Weakness
Weakness
Other
Todo
Structure
Structure
Todo
Todo
Structure
Todo
Todo
Structure
Todo
Todo
Structure
Todo
Todo
Todo
Other
Structure
Todo
Todo