Many thanks for an interesting and well-written study/review. The aim of your systematic review to develop understanding of the application GT methodology in the field of nursing research is a nice purpose to investigate.

Consider whether the definition of classic GT methodology in review needs to be further clarified, and also in relation to the other variants of Grounded Theory. Do you need to further clarify which specific aspects of the classic GT methodology you think, are the most relevant to nursing research and this field of research.

It is very positive that you have used GUREGT, but I wonder if you have perceived any limitations with GUREGT that need to be further clarified in the study.
How have you handled studies that have used a combination of classic GT and other approaches? I wonder if it was somehow ensured that the included studies used classic GT and had not just stated or referred to this.

All included studies were appraised as moderate to very high quality using the CASP tool, were there gradings that were on the limit and if so, which parts were difficult to assess.

The conclusion is relatively extensive on almost one page, my question is whether it can be simplified further to get the main message across further. The first part about this systematic review being the first to provide a comprehensive assessment of the use of Classic Grounded Theory (GT) in nursing studies, using the criteria in GUREGT, this needs to be included in the conclusion as it is presented elsewhere in the text. The latter part of the conclusion is perceived to be more the part that reflects your conclusion based on the purpose and method used.

Many thanks for an interesting review of published studies, to facilitate the review to navigate this methodology.