Table 1.

Relevance scale of the publication, adapted from Goodman et al. (19).

Relevance	Definition
Included studies
6 = Directly and highly relevant (these studies are also included in class 5)	The abstract explicitly addresses PF. In the results section of the articles, PF are described in relation to the ICF classification (for example, as an outcome measure or factors affecting functioning). In addition, the role of PF in rehabilitation is reflected on in the discussion section.
5 = Definitely relevant	PF are mentioned in the abstract. In the results section of the articles PF are described in relation to the ICF classification (for example as an outcome measure or as a factor affecting functioning).
Excluded studies
4 = Probably relevant	PF are mentioned in the abstract. The article does not distinguish which PF are defined as falling within the ICF classification.
3 = Possibly not relevant	The article mentions PF, but the focus on PF is not well articulated or consistently a focus throughout the paper.
2 = Probably not relevant	PF are mentioned in the abstract. Only a minor focus on PF.
1 = Definitely not relevant	The article makes no mention of PF.