Title: Understanding illness experiences of patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis - a
qualitative analysis within the SOMA.LIV study
Version: 0 Date: 05 Nov 2022
Reviewer's report:
Review; Understanding illness experiences of patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis - a
qualitative analysis
Thank you for the opportunity to read this paper.
Just some comments
• Is the paper technically sound?
The abstract is accurate and complete.
Yes, the paper is technically sound, the research questions are clear—focusing on the experience
of living with PSC. The context is specialist centres for autoimmune liver disease in Germany.
The study design is appropriate to answer the research question.
In total 49 references- they are mostly actual. Sixteen references are more than 10 years old.
These references are mostly methodological or theoretical.
Please correct, ref 30. The Declaration of Helsinki  is the World Medical Association’s (WMA)
best-known policy statement. The current (2013) version is the only official one; all previous
versions have been replaced and should not be used or cited except for historical purposes.
The six steps in the analysis are not clearly presented, qualitative researchers do recognize them,
but I am not sure that all readers understand and can follow the procedure
• Are the claims fully supported by the experimental data? If not, what further evidence is
needed?
Yes, the findings/results are supported by the data.
A suggestion, present the result in the same order in the abstract as in the text- starting with the
overall theme, built by the three generated themes.
Figure 1.- is illustrative. But are the themes placed in that order due to a reason? When I read
the text, it seems as there is a process, or a transition, if so, there should be arrows showing that?
Or are the themes free, not associated or influencing each other in any way?
The findings/result are easy to follow and there are quotations, giving” evidence” and
representativeness.
• Is the statistical analysis of the data sound?
NA, this is a qualitative study
• Does the availability of data adhere to the expected standards of your research community?
Yes, it adheres to the expected standards
• Are the claims appropriately discussed in the context of previous literature?
As stated above, present the result preamble in the discussion in the same order as in the text-
starting with the overall theme, built by the three generated themes. The discussion then starts
in that order…
The discussion is interesting, and the findings are deepened by theoretically reasoning.
• Could the manuscript be revised to address any potential limitations?
Strengths and limitations are reflected upon. But there is no reflection about talking to people
about a sensitive topic without having the ability to see body language and reactions. Are
telephone interviews similar no matter if it is about marketing or life threating diseases?
How handle if the participants needed psychological support?
Thank you for an interesting and readable manuscript.
Title: Understanding illness experiences of patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis - a
qualitative analysis within the SOMA.LIV study
Version: 0 Date: 05 Nov 2022
Reviewer's report:
Review; Understanding illness experiences of patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis - a
qualitative analysis
Thank you for the opportunity to read this paper.
Just some comments
• Is the paper technically sound?
The abstract is accurate and complete.
Yes, the paper is technically sound, the research questions are clear—focusing on the experience
of living with PSC. The context is specialist centres for autoimmune liver disease in Germany.
The study design is appropriate to answer the research question.
In total 49 references- they are mostly actual. Sixteen references are more than 10 years old.
These references are mostly methodological or theoretical.
Please correct, ref 30. The Declaration of Helsinki  is the World Medical Association’s (WMA)
best-known policy statement. The current (2013) version is the only official one; all previous
versions have been replaced and should not be used or cited except for historical purposes.
The six steps in the analysis are not clearly presented, qualitative researchers do recognize them,
but I am not sure that all readers understand and can follow the procedure
• Are the claims fully supported by the experimental data? If not, what further evidence is
needed?
Yes, the findings/results are supported by the data.
A suggestion, present the result in the same order in the abstract as in the text- starting with the
overall theme, built by the three generated themes.
Figure 1.- is illustrative. But are the themes placed in that order due to a reason? When I read
the text, it seems as there is a process, or a transition, if so, there should be arrows showing that?
Or are the themes free, not associated or influencing each other in any way?
The findings/result are easy to follow and there are quotations, giving” evidence” and
representativeness.
• Is the statistical analysis of the data sound?
NA, this is a qualitative study
• Does the availability of data adhere to the expected standards of your research community?
Yes, it adheres to the expected standards
• Are the claims appropriately discussed in the context of previous literature?
As stated above, present the result preamble in the discussion in the same order as in the text-
starting with the overall theme, built by the three generated themes. The discussion then starts
in that order…
The discussion is interesting, and the findings are deepened by theoretically reasoning.
• Could the manuscript be revised to address any potential limitations?
Strengths and limitations are reflected upon. But there is no reflection about talking to people
about a sensitive topic without having the ability to see body language and reactions. Are
telephone interviews similar no matter if it is about marketing or life threating diseases?
How handle if the participants needed psychological support?
Thank you for an interesting and readable manuscript.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Understanding illness experiences of patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis - a
qualitative analysis within the SOMA.LIV study
Version: 0 Date: 05 Nov 2022
Reviewer's report:
Review; Understanding illness experiences of patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis - a
qualitative analysis
Thank you for the opportunity to read this paper.
Just some comments
• Is the paper technically sound?
The abstract is accurate and complete.
Yes, the paper is technically sound, the research questions are clear—focusing on the experience
of living with PSC. The context is specialist centres for autoimmune liver disease in Germany.
The study design is appropriate to answer the research question.
In total 49 references- they are mostly actual. Sixteen references are more than 10 years old.
These references are mostly methodological or theoretical.
Please correct, ref 30. The Declaration of Helsinki  is the World Medical Association’s (WMA)
best-known policy statement. The current (2013) version is the only official one; all previous
versions have been replaced and should not be used or cited except for historical purposes.
The six steps in the analysis are not clearly presented, qualitative researchers do recognize them,
but I am not sure that all readers understand and can follow the procedure
• Are the claims fully supported by the experimental data? If not, what further evidence is
needed?
Yes, the findings/results are supported by the data.
A suggestion, present the result in the same order in the abstract as in the text- starting with the
overall theme, built by the three generated themes.
Figure 1.- is illustrative. But are the themes placed in that order due to a reason? When I read
the text, it seems as there is a process, or a transition, if so, there should be arrows showing that?
Or are the themes free, not associated or influencing each other in any way?
The findings/result are easy to follow and there are quotations, giving” evidence” and
representativeness.
• Is the statistical analysis of the data sound?
NA, this is a qualitative study
• Does the availability of data adhere to the expected standards of your research community?
Yes, it adheres to the expected standards
• Are the claims appropriately discussed in the context of previous literature?
As stated above, present the result preamble in the discussion in the same order as in the text-
starting with the overall theme, built by the three generated themes. The discussion then starts
in that order…
The discussion is interesting, and the findings are deepened by theoretically reasoning.
• Could the manuscript be revised to address any potential limitations?
Strengths and limitations are reflected upon. But there is no reflection about talking to people
about a sensitive topic without having the ability to see body language and reactions. Are
telephone interviews similar no matter if it is about marketing or life threating diseases?
How handle if the participants needed psychological support?
Thank you for an interesting and readable manuscript.
assistant