Invited commentary on "Level of evidence in four selected rehabilitation journals"

Level of evidence has been studied in 4 selected rehabilitation journals in the article by Kocak, Unver, and Karatosun. However, other journals within the rehabilitation field would also have been relevant to study to get a more comprehensive analysis. Examples of such journals are mentioned in this commentary. The limitations of the traditional impact factor are discussed, and the use of a 5-year impact factor is suggested. The categorization of journals used and the lack of definitions of the categories are criticized. The importance of publishing more randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews in rehabilitation is supported.