Batista, CarlaSoares, Joana IsabelCoelho, PauloFerreira, SimãoRosenzweig, IvanaBorges, Daniel FilipeBorges, Daniel FilipeFerreira, Simão2025-12-182025-12-182025-11-21Batista, C., Soares, J. I., Coelho, P., Ferreira, S., Rosenzweig, I., & Borges, D. F. (2025, novembro 21). Response to: Does reliability benefit from superior visualization of epileptiform discharges on inferior temporal electrodes? [Carta ao editor].1294-9361http://hdl.handle.net/10400.22/31261We thank Dr. Kleine for his thoughtful letter regarding our study and for highlighting both the anatomical rationale and the recognized clinical relevance of inferior-temporal electrodes. We welcome the opportunity to clarify specific numerical points and to provide the inter-reviewer agreement data he requested. Our study was intentionally designed as a prospective, blinded, within-subject technical validation comparing the IFCN-recommended 25-electrode 19-channel 10–20 International System (10–20 IS) in consecutive(IFCN-25) array with the conventional 19-channel 10–20 International System (10–20 IS) in consecutive adult EEGs. Importantly, it was not framed as a diagnostic or superiority trial: no external gold standard was applied, and both montages were treated methodologically as equivalent acquisition systems. The primary endpoint was patient-level detection of any abnormality (IEDs or focal slow activity) under blinded real-world conditions. In this reply, we address exclusively the point raised by Dr. Kleine concerning inter-reviewer agreement for temporal-lobe IEDs, providing the 2 × 2 tables and κ values requested. These analyses represent a clear subset of the broader dataset already published and are provided here for transparency.engletter to the editor10.1002/epd2.701461950-6946