constitutes one of the most important problems in the use of sequential digital monitoring. 5 This problem must be taken into consideration in the final analysis of the study data and must be regarded as a highly dangerous event because it involves leaving in the patient a melanoma that in the predigital era would have been removed. 4 Another important bias in patient selection is the exclusion of patients in which the images collected ('poor image quality') did not allow for a safe analysis at the checks, such as whether cases were excluded in traditional 'clinical trial' because they could not be diagnosed by the called 'naked eye'. In our opinion, these cases must not be excluded but even analysed deeply. Technology use must be accompanied by an analysis of its limits or difficulties, Therefore, we are of the opinion that these exclusions do not represent reality, and therefore, the authors did not calculate the sensitivity and specificity of the method in a manner comparable with real practice. Furthermore, we do not understand the utility and safety of the assistant nurse. If a patient is returned for short-term monitoring (after only 3-4 months), it means that the patient has a high-risk lesion. These patients must be managed by a particularly experienced dermatologist and not by a nurse who can only photograph the suspicious lesion. Using a nurse runs the risk of losing the patient not only from follow-up but also from excision. The dermatologist can immediately explain the importance and necessity of excision to the patient, unlike the nurse, a phone call or a letter he receives at home. Thus, we are sure that short-term teledermoscopic monitoring will play an important role in the early diagnosis of melanoma in the future. However, at present, it is key to have evidence-based studies that simulate clinical practice and can provide fully convincing data about short-term teledermoscopic monitoring's role in melanoma screening.