While the topic is relevant, the article has several issues that need to be addressed. See following comments:

Abstract: Indicate when the new definition was developed?

In the introduction all the time-lines were described but not when the Cochrane rehab definition was developed. This is important because you are going to be based on this, to assess the CSR?

Study selection: “The methods for making these tagging decisions have been previously reported “- this should be briefly explained unless limited word count constraints interfere.

Data extraction: Consider presenting information about "Present/Absent/Unclear" in a table format

Page 6: MECIR- Clarify the term "MECIR" before using its abbreviation.

This is confusing. The timeline discrepancy between the inclusion of CSRs and the analysis should be addressed.
• Study selection: CSRs were included in this study if they had been tagged in the Cochrane Rehabilitation database as being about a rehabilitation intervention, from inception of the Cochrane library to March, 2, 2021
• Results: We analysed 124 CSRs from July 2022 to September 2022.

Page 8: “almost always”- be quantitative rather than using terms like "almost always" for clarity.

Discussion:
• “The latter”- referring to what? needs clarification

• “Concurrently, our results also suggest that there is a need for better reporting on the content of rehabilitation interventions in CSRs – this was obviously not possible before the rehabilitation definition was available as a specific reference framework for researchers in the field”: Reword the sentence in a way it reflects that the current availability of the new definition can be used for better reporting+++

• Page 12: “This reporting issue has already been previously proposed27, and it is the subject of another Cochrane Rehabilitation project12, 27, 28” : too many references, and the fact is not clear to the reader?

• Page 13: “Unfortunately, they were frequently reported in the wrong place in the paper, confirming on one side their relevance for rehabilitation, on the other the current misinterpretation of their role in defining the studied intervention as rehabilitation” - What is the correct place to report? Perhaps I missed it, but I noted this only in the Table 3 that this should be Background. Indicate the correct place for reporting with reference/s.

Conclusion: “We also did not find relevant information pointing to possible important gaps in the definition, but further studies are needed in this regard.” In discussion you have discussed QoL? Clarify this discrepancy.

The second objective is not given full attention. Provide clearer instructions for potential replication. Eg: Method: “We also searched in the CSRs any other relevant information used to describe the interventions that were not considered in the rehabilitation definition.” Very vague. If someone wants to repeat, this is not going to help?

Given these concerns, I recommend a thorough revision of the manuscript to address these issues and enhance its overall quality and impact.