# Take Fatigue or Fatigues into Account in Physiotherapy Interventions? A Rapid Scoping Review

Shotaro Tachibana, Clémence Kiho Bourgeois Yoshioka

► To cite this version:

Shotaro Tachibana, Clémence Kiho Bourgeois Yoshioka. Take Fatigue or Fatigues into Account in Physiotherapy Interventions? A Rapid Scoping Review. Physical Therapy Research, 2025, 10.1298/ptr.r0038. hal-05371035

HAL Id: hal-05371035

https://hal.science/hal-05371035v1

Submitted on 18 Nov 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
REVIEW

# Take Fatigue or Fatigues into Account in Physiotherapy Interventions? A Rapid Scoping Review

Shotaro TACHIBANA, PT, PhD Candidate,<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="2" /> and Clémence Kiho BOURGEOIS YOSHIOKA, PT, PhD<fnref n="3" />

**ABSTRACT.** Fatigue is one of the most common symptoms encountered in rehabilitation and during physical therapy interventions. Although this phenomenon is known and experienced by everyone, its assessment is not straightforward. The lack of consensus on its definition, complex etiology, and multidimensional nature means that a large number of outcomes exist and continue to be reviewed. However, it seems essential that its assessment be better defined and standardized to understand the effects of physical therapy. To provide an initial exploratory overview, we conducted a rapid scoping review of the various fatigue assessments used in physiotherapy interventions or performed by physical therapists. A total of 139 articles published between 2020 and July 31, 2025 were included and explored. We found 43 different outcomes used across 46 population groups. While the most well-known chronic conditions such as cancer, multiple sclerosis (MS), and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are representative, their assessment methods do not appear to be harmonized. These findings from the study support the idea that fatigue remains a complex phenomenon to assess. However, it appears that the lack of justification for the choice of an outcome prevents a better understanding of the reproducible effects on fatigue in physiotherapy interventions.

**Key words:** Fatigue, Physiotherapy, Physical therapist, Rehabilitation

(Phys Ther Res 00: 00–00, 0000)

## Introduction

Fatigue is a conscious sensation experienced by all individuals. Due to its multidimensional nature, there is currently no universal definition of fatigue. Angelo Mosso, one of the pioneers in the physiological description of fatigue, had already observed the following relationship more than a century earlier: the brain and the muscles alter

their function during exercise and that fatigue is predominantly an emotion, part of a complex regulation, whose role is to protect the body from harm<fnref n="1" />. Although the etiology of fatigue is not yet well understood today, fatigue appears to be a universal phenomenon that can be experienced by any conscious individual. The global prevalence of general fatigue (fatigue lasting <6 months, or fatigue of unspecified duration) is 20.4% in adults, 11.7% in minors, and 42.3% in specific occupations<fnref n="2" />. In the medical field, one-fifth of family medicine patients present with fatigue, and one-third of adolescents report having fatigue at least 4 days per week<fnref n="3" />. This observation leads us to an initial reflection. On the one hand, fatigue is a phenomenon already familiar to individuals in their daily lives. On the other hand, the onset of a health problem could cause certain aspects of fatigue to appear or become more pronounced. In other words, the gap between the fatigue already experienced by the individual and the fatigue caused by an illness remains poorly understood. While the causes are diverse and can be physiological and/or psychological in origin, the consequences are often harmful to the individual. Fatigue is

Received: August 19, 2025

Accepted: September 1, 2025

Advance Publication by J-STAGE: November 15, 2025

Correspondence to: Shotaro Tachibana. Department of Pediatrics Re-habilitation Medicine l'Escale, Hospices Civils de Lyon (HCL), 59

Boulevard Pinel, 69500 Bron, France

e-mail: shotaro.tachibana@chu-lyon.fr

doi: 10.1298/ptr.R0038

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

<footnote n="1">¹Department of Pediatrics Rehabilitation Medicine l'Escale, Hospices Civils de Lyon (HCL), Bron, France</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²Trajectoires Team, Lyon Neuroscience Research Center (CRNL), Bron, France</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³Department of Health Sciences, Medical School, Nagoya City University, Japan</footnote>
one of the most burdensome and disabling symptoms in a multitude of acute and chronic conditions across the lifespan⁴). Managing fatigue is both a challenge and a key goal in rehabilitation care to improve patients’ quality of life. It is essential to take this into account for rehabilitation follow-up, but the multidimensional nature of fatigue can make it difficult to assess. Appropriate measurement of fatigue allows the effectiveness of an intervention from a clinical perspective, but is also important from a scientific perspective when compared with other studies. Although numerous outcomes exist, including specific ones for certain pathologies, there appears to be no consensus on their use among both clinicians and researchers⁵,⁶). Particularly in studies investigating exercise programs performed and/ or supervised by physical therapists, fatigue often appears as a primary or secondary outcome measure. A general overview of all the scales used in physiotherapy would contribute to the development of a consensus on fatigue assessment and also provide a conceptual reflection into fatigue assessment itself. For this purpose, our objective is to collect and map the various fatigue-related outcomes used by physical therapists in different areas of intervention. Given the exploratory nature of our study and the heterogeneity of the various parameters we aim to collect, we conducted a rapid scoping review to answer the following 2 questions: What outcomes are used to evaluate fatigue in physiotherapy interventions? And are our fatigue assessments standardized across similar fields?

## Materials and Methods

A scoping review protocol was prepared and registered on the Open Science Framework (osf.io/vcjde), and was guided by established scoping review and rapid review methodologies⁷,⁸). This project was conducted over a 14-week timeframe (April 28–August 15, 2025) and was reported according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) statement (Appendix 1)⁹). We provide the search string strategies for each database in Appendix 2.

### Literature search

One researcher (S.T.) conducted a literature search across 6 databases on July 31, 2025, to access a comprehensive list of sources. The search was guided by the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis¹⁰). Six databases, PubMed (National Library of Medicine), Cochrane Library, CINAHL (EBSCO), Embase (Elsevier), and Web of Science (Clarivate), and LiSSA (a French Health Science Database), were chosen for their inclusion of randomized clinical trials and broad clinical scope. These databases also use controlled vocabularies for physical therapist, rehabilitation, and fatigue (Medical Subject Headings [MeSH], Etree, CINAHL Subject Headings), which supplement

keyword searches for terms appearing in titles, abstracts, and author-selected keywords. Appendix 2 provides the search string strategies for each database. We limited the scope to English-language articles published primarily between 2015 and 2025 to capture current discussion. Publications meeting search criteria were transferred into Rayyan, a web-based systematic review application that was used to assist in screening¹¹).

### Inclusion criteria

Using the PICOS tool, our inclusion criteria were defined as follows:

* Population = Healthy population or people with disease, including children

* Interventions = All types of interventions, directly or remotely, involving a physical therapist

* Comparator = No criteria for comparison (with or without)

* Outcomes = Any scales or questionnaires designed primarily to measure the fatigue experienced by the subject

* Study designs = All study designs, including qualitative studies

### Literature screening

Articles were eligible for inclusion if they were written in English. Although our research was primarily focused on articles published from 2015 onwards, older articles and articles without date labeling were found during the screening process (Fig. 1). First, we eliminated articles published before 2015 and retained only those that used a fatigue outcome in the context of rehabilitation involving physical therapy or a physical therapist. This included articles presenting different types of studies ranging from case studies to qualitative studies. Articles were excluded when fatigue was not explicitly sought in the outcome measures or if it was only reported by a quality of life questionnaire or mentioned as an adverse event. Terms that could be interpreted as synonyms, such as exacerbation or dyspnea, were also excluded to retain articles in which the authors explicitly mentioned fatigue in their work.

Literature screening was conducted independently by both authors using Rayyan (Qatar Computing Research Institute, Doha, Qatar), to review all articles and to confirm eligibility at each stage; conflicts were resolved through discussion and consensus. First, titles and abstracts were screened, then the articles were retrieved, and full texts were assessed for eligibility. The screening process was piloted at each stage to clarify eligibility criteria (i.e., refine exclusion criteria). Protocol articles without results, posters, and conference presentations were excluded during this phase because fatigue outcomes were not always specified. Due to the large number of articles meeting eligibility criteria and resource considerations, only studies published in 2020 or later were included in the final set for collecting and mapping the targeted data (Fig. 2).
Take Fatigue or Fatigues into Account in PT Interventions?

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1.** Records found during the screening process per year of publication.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2.** PRISMA diagram showing the results of the literature.
PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses</figcaption></figure>
## Synthesis of results

All articles in the final set were uploaded into the Zotero reference manager (version 7.0.13; Corporation for Digital Scholarship, Vienna, VA, USA). Both authors reread each article and highlighted the following data: population, the criterion(s) used to assess fatigue, and the type of study. The data were entered and classified in a table using Excel software (version 1808; Microsoft, Redmond, WA, USA) to obtain an overview of the different fatigue scales used in different populations. Each author checked the table to validate the final version (Table 1).

## Results

A total of 139 articles met the criteria for our research<sup>12-150</sup>. We found 43 different outcomes (distinguishing modified versions for certain scales) and 46 different population groups, which we categorized into 6 distinct fields: neurology and neuromuscular; cancer (all types); pneumology (including coronavirus disease 2019 [COVID-19]); musculoskeletal; cardiovascular; other fields (rare disease, healthy population, etc.).

The number of publications per field was as follows: 40 publications for cancer (29%); 29 on multiple sclerosis (MS) (21%) and 24 on other pathologies (17%) for neurology and neuromuscular; 21 publications including 16 on COVID-19 for Pneumology (15%); 8 publications for musculoskeletal (6%); 6 publications for cardiovascular (4%); and 11 publications for other fields (8%) (Fig. 3).

The number of publications per study type was as follows: 41 publications for randomized trial (29%); 30 publications including 27 systematic review and 3 scoping review for literature review (22%); 27 publications for interventional study (19%); 8 publications for pilot study (6%); 8 publications for case report and case series (6%); 7 publications for feasibility study (5%); 4 publications for survey (3%); and 14 publications for other types (10%) (Fig. 4).

Since our research period included lockdown periods, 23 articles used or mentioned remote intervention techniques (e.g., tele-rehabilitation or tele-physiotherapy)<sup>14,19,21,27,28,39-41,51,56,72,81,99,117,121,122,129-132,136,142,148).

Unsurprisingly, and in accordance with the literature, the 3 most commonly represented diseases were studies involving patients with cancer, MS, and post-COVID-19<sup>151,152</sup>. For the latter, we investigated further what different outcomes were used and whether some of them were more representative (Figs. 5–7).

In cancer, we found 21 different outcomes across the 40 publications<sup>20,23,25,31,33,34,47,48,53,56,66,69,70,72,74,75,80,82,84,86,87,93,94,102,105,109,110,116,120,122,123,124,126,128,130,133,144,147). In one of the articles, although it is a similar scale, the authors distinguish between the fatigue scale for children and adolescents. The most representative scales are the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire

Core-30(EORTC QLQ-C-30; 12 articles), Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI; 8 articles), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy – Fatigue Scale (FACIT-F; 8 articles), and 8 articles including the Piper Fatigue Scale (PipFS-R) and Revised Piper Fatigue Scale (RPS). We also noted that the Piper Fatigue Scale, designed to assess fatigue in women with breast cancer, was used in only 4 of the 10 articles dealing with this topic.

In MS, we found 12 different outcomes across the 29 publications<sup>14,19,21,24,27,37,39-41,46,50,62,63,65,67,71,85,89,91,92,97,100,129,131,135,138,139,143,150). The most representative scale was the Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS; 17 articles), followed by the Modified Fatigue Impact Scale and its original version (17 articles including 14 MFIS and 6 Fatigue Impact Scale [FIS]). Although certain fatigue scales are appropriate for the MS population (notably the FIS, MFIS, FSS, and the Würzburg Fatigue Inventory for Multiple Sclerosis [WEIMuS]), we have noted that there is disparity in their use.

In COVID-19, we found 11 different outcomes across the 16 publications<sup>16,17,22,51,59,68,81,95,111,115,118,119,132,134,142,148). The most representative scale was FSS (6 articles), followed by the Modified Borg Scale (MBS; 3 articles) and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS; 3 articles). The choice of these scales appears to be a consequence of the pulmonary involvement and the context in which the assessments were conducted.

We also noted that some literature reviews included both unidimensional and multidimensional outcomes of fatigue, some of which addressed different time periods of symptoms experienced by patients (at the time, since a week, since last 4 weeks, etc.)<sup>19,29,33,47,66,69,75,92,96,101,103,107,108,110,116,119,124,128,129,132,141,142,144).

## Discussion

A total of 139 articles published between 2020 and mid-July 2025 met the eligibility criteria for this scoping review. To our knowledge, this is the 1st exploratory study to examine fatigue assessments performed by physical therapists. Although the COVID-19 pandemic is likely influencing our interest in fatigue in the field of rehabilitation, it appears that these topics have always been studied in light of our initial findings during the screening phase (Fig. 1). Although our research was not intended to describe every scale of fatigue, the variety of different outcomes appeared to us to be very large. This initial observation leads us to a notion that is not new but is nevertheless evident in practice: fatigue is a multidimensional and complex phenomenon that is challenging to assess.

In the research field, some instrumental methods can be used to objectivize certain dimensions of fatigue through performance tests, such as neuromuscular or cognitive fatigability<sup>153,154</sup>. However, these measures are limited by the experimental conditions, conducted in controlled environments, which do not necessarily reflect the nature and experience of fatigue in subjects’ everyday lives. This
<table><caption>**Table 1.** Overview of the different fatigue scales used in different populations</caption><thead><tr><th>Population</th><th>Outcomes for fatigue</th><th>Study type</th><th>References</th><th>Year</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Acute ankle sprains</td><td>VAS</td><td>Longitudinal cohort study</td><td>Correia et al.</td><td>2021</td></tr><tr><td>Acute burn injuries</td><td>Hooper's Index</td><td>Interventional study</td><td>Page et al.</td><td>2025</td></tr><tr><td>Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis</td><td>FSS</td><td>Interventional study</td><td>Gonçalves et al.</td><td>2022</td></tr><tr><td>Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis</td><td>MFIS; FSS; NFI-MND</td><td>Systematic review</td><td>Silva et al.</td><td>2024</td></tr><tr><td>Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis</td><td>FSS; BRS</td><td>Systematic review</td><td>Souza et al.</td><td>2025</td></tr><tr><td>Beta thalassemia major</td><td>FSS</td><td>Case report</td><td>Choubisa et al.</td><td>2022</td></tr><tr><td>Bronchiectasis (adult)</td><td>HRQoL</td><td>Delphi study</td><td>Hamzeh et al.</td><td>2024</td></tr><tr><td>Cancer</td><td>FACT-F; BFI; Fatigue (not specified)</td><td>Systematic review</td><td>Al-Mhanna et al.</td><td>2022</td></tr><tr><td>Cancer</td><td>EORTC QLQ-C-30</td><td>Feasibility study</td><td>Christensen et al.</td><td>2025</td></tr><tr><td>Cancer</td><td>FSS</td><td>Feasibility study</td><td>Denti et al.</td><td>2024</td></tr><tr><td>Cancer</td><td>MFI; EORTC QLQ-C30; PROMs</td><td>Systematic review</td><td>Gauchez et al.</td><td>2024</td></tr><tr><td>Cancer</td><td>PipFS; MFI; EORTC QLQ-C30</td><td>Scoping review</td><td>Gonçalves Leite Rocco et al.</td><td>2024</td></tr><tr><td>Cancer</td><td>FACIT-F; PedsQL</td><td>Systematic review</td><td>Hao et al.</td><td>2023</td></tr><tr><td>Cancer</td><td>EORTC QLQ-C30</td><td>Interventional study</td><td>Ibrahim et al.</td><td>2024</td></tr><tr><td>Cancer</td><td>BFI</td><td>Retrospective cohort study</td><td>Mack et al.</td><td>2021</td></tr><tr><td>Cancer</td><td>CFQ</td><td>Interventional study</td><td>Nilsson et al.</td><td>2020</td></tr><tr><td>Cancer</td><td>MFI; EORTC QLQ-C30; RPS; FACIT-F; FACT-F; LASA; FAS; FAQ; PROMIS</td><td>Systematic review</td><td>Penna et al.</td><td>2023</td></tr><tr><td>Cancer</td><td>PipFS-R; MFI; FACT-F; BFI; FACIT-F</td><td>Interventional study</td><td>Trommer et al.</td><td>2023</td></tr><tr><td>Cancer</td><td>MFI; EORTC QLQ-C30; FQ; VAS; BFI</td><td>Systematic review</td><td>Vira et al.</td><td>2021</td></tr><tr><td>Cancer (breast and prostate)</td><td>PipFS; FACIT-F; FACT-F; MFI; FAQ</td><td>Systematic review</td><td>Cano-Uceda et al.</td><td>2025</td></tr><tr><td>Cancer (breast and prostate)</td><td>MFI</td><td>Randomized trial</td><td>Van de Wiel et al.</td><td>2021</td></tr><tr><td>Cancer (breast)</td><td>FSS; EORTC QLQ-C30</td><td>Case-control study</td><td>Alaca et al.</td><td>2024</td></tr><tr><td>Cancer (breast)</td><td>FIS</td><td>Interventional study</td><td>Bahçaci et al.</td><td>2024</td></tr><tr><td>Cancer (breast)</td><td>BFI; EORTC QLQ-C30</td><td>Pilot study</td><td>Invernizzi et al.</td><td>2020</td></tr><tr><td>Cancer (breast)</td><td>PipFS</td><td>Randomized trial</td><td>Mur-Gimeno et al.</td><td>2024</td></tr><tr><td>Cancer (breast)</td><td>MFI-SF; PipFS</td><td>Systematic review</td><td>Mur-Gimeno et al.</td><td>2022</td></tr><tr><td>Cancer (breast)</td><td>EORTC QLQ-C30</td><td>Randomized trial</td><td>Rashid et al.</td><td>2025</td></tr><tr><td>Cancer (breast)</td><td>BFI</td><td>Pilot study</td><td>Tay et al.</td><td>2024</td></tr><tr><td>Cancer (breast)</td><td>PipFS</td><td>Systematic review</td><td>Wang et al.</td><td>2022</td></tr><tr><td>Cancer (colorectal)</td><td>EORTC QLQ-C30</td><td>Interventional study</td><td>Finch et al.</td><td>2024</td></tr><tr><td>Cancer (gliomas)</td><td>HRQoL</td><td>Randomized trial</td><td>Hansen et al.</td><td>2020</td></tr><tr><td>Cancer (gynecologic)</td><td>Not specified</td><td>Case report</td><td>Coughenour et al.</td><td>2024</td></tr><tr><td>Cancer (gynecologic)</td><td>MFIS</td><td>Interventional study</td><td>Wood et al.</td><td>2022</td></tr><tr><td>Cancer (head and neck)</td><td>EORTC QLQ-C30</td><td>Interventional study</td><td>Felser et al.</td><td>2025</td></tr><tr><td>Cancer (head and neck)</td><td>FSS</td><td>Survey</td><td>Krishna Alaparthi et al.</td><td>2022</td></tr><tr><td>Cancer (head and neck)</td><td>FACT-F</td><td>Randomized trial</td><td>McNeely et al.</td><td>2024</td></tr><tr><td>Cancer (hematologic)</td><td>FACIT-F</td><td>Randomized trial</td><td>Accogli et al.</td><td>2022</td></tr><tr><td>Cancer (lung with spinal cord injury)</td><td>FACIT-F</td><td>Case report</td><td>Kelch et al.</td><td>2022</td></tr><tr><td>Cancer (lymphoma)</td><td>Not specified</td><td>Systematic review</td><td>Jerbi et al.</td><td>2022</td></tr><tr><td>Cancer (myeloma)</td><td>FACIT-F</td><td>Randomized trial</td><td>McCourt et al.</td><td>2023</td></tr><tr><td>Cancer (esophageal)</td><td>MFI; EORTC QLQ-C30</td><td>Randomized trial</td><td>Van Vulpen et al.</td><td>2021</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>**Table 1.** (Continued)</caption><thead><tr><th>Population</th><th>Outcomes for fatigue</th><th>Study type</th><th>References</th><th>Year</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Cancer (esophagogastric)</td><td>Not specified</td><td>Qualitative study</td><td>O'Neill et al.</td><td>2021</td></tr><tr><td>Cancer (pediatrics acute lymphoblastic leukemia)</td><td>PedsQL</td><td>Randomized trial</td><td>Elnaggar et al.</td><td>2025</td></tr><tr><td>Cancer (pediatrics and adolescents)</td><td>Not specified</td><td>Cross-sectional survey</td><td>Ospina et al.</td><td>2020</td></tr><tr><td>Cancer (pediatrics and adolescents)</td><td>PedsQL; MFS; CCFS; FS-C; FS-A</td><td>Literature review</td><td>Ospina et al.</td><td>2021</td></tr><tr><td>Cancer (survivor)</td><td>FACIT-F; PipFS-R</td><td>Systematic review</td><td>Gray et al.</td><td>2024</td></tr><tr><td>Cancer (urinary bladder)</td><td>PipFS</td><td>Randomized trial</td><td>Porserud et al.</td><td>2024</td></tr><tr><td>Cerebral Palsy (children)</td><td>PedsQL</td><td>Interventional study</td><td>Celikel et al.</td><td>2023</td></tr><tr><td>Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease</td><td>FSS; CIS-20R</td><td>Scoping review</td><td>Tedeschi et al.</td><td>2025</td></tr><tr><td>Chronic advanced diseases (palliative)</td><td>3LNQ</td><td>Cross-sectional study</td><td>Høgdal et al.</td><td>2020</td></tr><tr><td>Chronic back pain</td><td>Not specified</td><td>Pilot study</td><td>You et al.</td><td>2021</td></tr><tr><td>Chronic low back pain</td><td>FACIT-F</td><td>Randomized trial</td><td>Dilekçi et al.</td><td>2020</td></tr><tr><td>Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease</td><td>FSS</td><td>Randomized trial</td><td>Kovelis et al.</td><td>2020</td></tr><tr><td>Chronic widespread pain</td><td>CFQ</td><td>Interventional study</td><td>Thompson et al.</td><td>2022</td></tr><tr><td>Coronary artery bypass graft</td><td>Not specified</td><td>Survey</td><td>Hong et al.</td><td>2020</td></tr><tr><td>Coronary artery disease</td><td>MBS</td><td>Interventional study</td><td>Saklıca et al.</td><td>2024</td></tr><tr><td>COVID-19</td><td>MBS; Quality of life (not specified)</td><td>Systematic review</td><td>Beqaj et al.</td><td>2022</td></tr><tr><td>COVID-19</td><td>MBS</td><td>Randomized trial</td><td>Fereydounnia et al.</td><td>2022</td></tr><tr><td>COVID-19</td><td>FSS</td><td>Randomized trial</td><td>Paneroni et al.</td><td>2024</td></tr><tr><td>COVID-19</td><td>VAS</td><td>Systematic review</td><td>A.M.C. et al.</td><td>2023</td></tr><tr><td>COVID-19 (long)</td><td>FSS</td><td>Pilot study</td><td>Deodato et al.</td><td>2024</td></tr><tr><td>COVID-19 (long)</td><td>mMRC; FSS</td><td>Systematic review</td><td>Mass Kokolevich et al.</td><td>2024</td></tr><tr><td>COVID-19 (long)</td><td>CIS-Fatigue</td><td>Randomized trial</td><td>Volckaerts et al.</td><td>2023</td></tr><tr><td>COVID-19 (post)</td><td>VAS</td><td>Interventional study</td><td>Tăbîrţă et al.</td><td>2023</td></tr><tr><td>COVID-19 (post)</td><td>MPFSDQ</td><td>Controlled open study</td><td>Campos et al.</td><td>2024</td></tr><tr><td>COVID-19 (post)</td><td>Not specified</td><td>Systematic review</td><td>Dillen et al.</td><td>2023</td></tr><tr><td>COVID-19 (post)</td><td>Fatigue outcomes were limited and could not be synthesized</td><td>Systematic review</td><td>Pouliopoulou et al.</td><td>2023</td></tr><tr><td>COVID-19 (post)</td><td>MBS</td><td>Randomized trial</td><td>Şahın et al.</td><td>2023</td></tr><tr><td>COVID-19 (post)</td><td>FSS</td><td>Pilot study</td><td>Sarmento et al.</td><td>2024</td></tr><tr><td>COVID-19 (post)</td><td>BRS; CFS-11; VAS; mMRC</td><td>Systematic review</td><td>Valverde-Martínez et al.</td><td>2023</td></tr><tr><td>COVID-19 (post)</td><td>FSS</td><td>Observational study</td><td>Weigl et al.</td><td>2024</td></tr><tr><td>COVID-19 pneumonia (severe)</td><td>FSS; CFQ; FACIT-F</td><td>Interventional study</td><td>Asimakos et al.</td><td>2023</td></tr><tr><td>Fibromyalgia</td><td>PipFS-R</td><td>Randomized trial</td><td>Fonseca et al.</td><td>2021</td></tr><tr><td>Fibromyalgia</td><td>MAF</td><td>Randomized trial</td><td>Yoo et al.</td><td>2022</td></tr><tr><td>Functional neurological disorder</td><td>PROMIS</td><td>Case series</td><td>Mowry et al.</td><td>2025</td></tr><tr><td>Guillain-Barré syndrome</td><td>FSS</td><td>Survey</td><td>Davidson et al.</td><td>2022</td></tr><tr><td>Guillain-Barré syndrome</td><td>FSS</td><td>Randomized trial</td><td>Shah et al.</td><td>2022</td></tr><tr><td>Healthy male</td><td>Self-reported perceived muscle fatigue</td><td>Experimental interventional study</td><td>Lim et al.</td><td>2024</td></tr><tr><td>Healthy workers</td><td>Not specified</td><td>Experimental interventional study</td><td>Vitoulas et al.</td><td>2022</td></tr><tr><td>Hematological diseases</td><td>Not specified</td><td>Interventional study</td><td>Morais et al.</td><td>2023</td></tr><tr><td>Hereditary cerebellar ataxia</td><td>FSS</td><td>Randomized trial</td><td>Milne et al.</td><td>2025</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>**Table 1.** (Continued)</caption><thead><tr><td>Population</td><td>Outcomes for fatigue</td><td>Study type</td><td>References</td><td>Year</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Hereditary neuromuscular diseases</td><td>FSS</td><td>Cross-sectional study</td><td>Andries et al.</td><td>2022</td></tr><tr><td>Hereditary neuromuscular diseases</td><td>Not specified</td><td>Survey</td><td>Stępień et al.</td><td>2022</td></tr><tr><td>Hip fracture surgery</td><td>VRS</td><td>Randomized trial</td><td>Zilmer et al.</td><td>2024</td></tr><tr><td>Hypermobility spectrum disorder</td><td>CIS-subscale fatigue</td><td>Feasibility study</td><td>Liaghat et al.</td><td>2020</td></tr><tr><td>Inflammatory arthritis</td><td>NRS</td><td>Randomized trial</td><td>Nordén et al.</td><td>2024</td></tr><tr><td>Interstitial lung disease</td><td>FACIT-F</td><td>Case report</td><td>Dasouki et al.</td><td>2023</td></tr><tr><td>Juvenile myasthenia gravis</td><td>PedsQL</td><td>Randomized trial</td><td>Mohamed et al.</td><td>2022</td></tr><tr><td>Long-term musculoskeletal conditions</td><td>NRS</td><td>Feasibility study</td><td>Minns Lowe et al.</td><td>2020</td></tr><tr><td>Marfan syndrome</td><td>FSS</td><td>Case report</td><td>Bhagwatkar et al.</td><td>2024</td></tr><tr><td>Multiple sclerosis</td><td>MFIS; WEIMuS; FIS; FSI; FSS</td><td>Scoping review</td><td>Adnan et al.</td><td>2024</td></tr><tr><td>Multiple sclerosis</td><td>MFIS</td><td>Systematic review</td><td>Amedoro et al.</td><td>2020</td></tr><tr><td>Multiple sclerosis</td><td>FIS</td><td>Interventional study</td><td>Andrejeva et al.</td><td>2023</td></tr><tr><td>Multiple sclerosis</td><td>FSS; MBS</td><td>Randomized trial</td><td>Blázquez-Fernández et al.</td><td>2024</td></tr><tr><td>Multiple sclerosis</td><td>FSS; MFIS</td><td>Randomized trial</td><td>Bonnyaud et al.</td><td>2025</td></tr><tr><td>Multiple sclerosis</td><td>MFIS</td><td>Pilot study</td><td>Chanpimol et al.</td><td>2020</td></tr><tr><td>Multiple sclerosis</td><td>MFIS</td><td>Interventional study</td><td>Dastan et al.</td><td>2025</td></tr><tr><td>Multiple sclerosis</td><td>FSS</td><td>Interventional study</td><td>Družbicki et al.</td><td>2021</td></tr><tr><td>Multiple sclerosis</td><td>MFIS</td><td>Systematic review</td><td>Elhusein et al.</td><td>2024</td></tr><tr><td>Multiple sclerosis</td><td>WEIMuS</td><td>Randomized trial</td><td>Flachenecker et al.</td><td>2020</td></tr><tr><td>Multiple sclerosis</td><td>FSS</td><td>Interventional study</td><td>Ghosh et al.</td><td>2024</td></tr><tr><td>Multiple sclerosis</td><td>FSS</td><td>Interventional study</td><td>Hendricksen et al.</td><td>2024</td></tr><tr><td>Multiple sclerosis</td><td>MFIS</td><td>Interventional study</td><td>Hrušková et al.</td><td>2024</td></tr><tr><td>Multiple sclerosis</td><td>MFIS</td><td>Randomized trial</td><td>Karakas et al.</td><td>2025</td></tr><tr><td>Multiple sclerosis</td><td>FSS</td><td>Interventional study</td><td>Knapova et al.</td><td>2025</td></tr><tr><td>Multiple sclerosis</td><td>MFIS</td><td>Interventional study</td><td>Kumar et al.</td><td>2024</td></tr><tr><td>Multiple sclerosis</td><td>FSS; MFIS</td><td>Randomized trial</td><td>Lamberti et al.</td><td>2020</td></tr><tr><td>Multiple sclerosis</td><td>FAS</td><td>Randomized trial</td><td>Lysogorskaia et al.</td><td>2023</td></tr><tr><td>Multiple sclerosis</td><td>MSQOL-54; MFIS; WEIMuS; FIS; FSS</td><td>Systematic review</td><td>Najafi et al.</td><td>2025</td></tr><tr><td>Multiple sclerosis</td><td>MFIS</td><td>Pilot study</td><td>Ozdogar et al.</td><td>2022</td></tr><tr><td>Multiple sclerosis</td><td>FSS</td><td>Randomized trial</td><td>Ozsoy-Unubol et al.</td><td>2022</td></tr><tr><td>Multiple sclerosis</td><td>FSS</td><td>Interventional study</td><td>Petracca et al.</td><td>2024</td></tr><tr><td>Multiple sclerosis</td><td>FSS; MFIS; CIS-20R; FSMC</td><td>Systematic review</td><td>Taul-Madsen et al.</td><td>2021</td></tr><tr><td>Multiple sclerosis</td><td>FSS</td><td>Observational study</td><td>Torchio et al.</td><td>2025</td></tr><tr><td>Multiple sclerosis</td><td>FIS; FSMC; FSS; MFIS; PROMIS; WEIMuS; RFT</td><td>Systematic review</td><td>Torres-Costoso et al.</td><td>2022</td></tr><tr><td>Multiple sclerosis</td><td>FSS</td><td>Randomized trial</td><td>Yazgan et al.</td><td>2020</td></tr><tr><td>Multiple sclerosis</td><td>FSS; FIS</td><td>Randomized trial</td><td>Yucekaya et al.</td><td>2025</td></tr><tr><td>Multiple sclerosis (pediatric onset)</td><td>FSS</td><td>Interventional study</td><td>Vural et al.</td><td>2023</td></tr><tr><td>Multiple sclerosis with Parkinson disease</td><td>FIS</td><td>Case report</td><td>Sütçü et al.</td><td>2021</td></tr><tr><td>Myalgic encephalomyelitis/ chronic fatigue syndrome</td><td>CFQ; CIS; FSS; PROMs</td><td>Systematic review</td><td>Wormgoor et al.</td><td>2021</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>**Table 1.** (Continued)</caption><thead><tr><th>Population</th><th>Outcomes for fatigue</th><th>Study type</th><th>References</th><th>Year</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Myalgic encephalomyelitis/ chronic fatigue syndrome (adolescents)</td><td>Self-reported</td><td>Randomized trial</td><td>Anderson et al.</td><td>2020</td></tr><tr><td>Myotonic dystrophy type 1</td><td>PROMIS</td><td>Single subject experimental design</td><td>Fossmo et al.</td><td>2024</td></tr><tr><td>Older adults</td><td>FSS</td><td>Randomized trial</td><td>Garbin et al.</td><td>2024</td></tr><tr><td>Parkinson disease</td><td>ParkFS</td><td>Feasibility study</td><td>Cooley Hidecker et al.</td><td>2022</td></tr><tr><td>Parkinson disease</td><td>ParkFS; MFIS; VAS; FSS; PipFS-R; KFSS</td><td>Systematic review</td><td>Ernst et al.</td><td>2023</td></tr><tr><td>Pediatric hematopoietic stem cell transplant</td><td>PROMIS</td><td>Randomized trial</td><td>Smith et al.</td><td>2022</td></tr><tr><td>People with disabilities</td><td>Not specified</td><td>Randomized trial</td><td>Ravesloot et al.</td><td>2022</td></tr><tr><td>Persisting post-concussive Symptoms</td><td>FSS</td><td>Randomized trial</td><td>Mercier et al.</td><td>2025</td></tr><tr><td>Pituitary adenoma</td><td>FSS</td><td>Randomized trial</td><td>Dülger et al.</td><td>2022</td></tr><tr><td>Postconcussion symptoms</td><td>BFI</td><td>Randomized trial</td><td>Nguyen et al.</td><td>2023</td></tr><tr><td>Primary biliary cholangitis</td><td>PBC-40 fatigue domain</td><td>Clinical trial</td><td>Freer et al.</td><td>2024</td></tr><tr><td>Pulmonary hypertension</td><td>FSS</td><td>Systematic review</td><td>Luo et al.</td><td>2022</td></tr><tr><td>Refractory dyspnea</td><td>CRQ</td><td>Pilot study</td><td>Clark et al.</td><td>2025</td></tr><tr><td>Spinal cord injury</td><td>FAS</td><td>Feasibility study</td><td>Postol et al.</td><td>2021</td></tr><tr><td>Stroke (early)</td><td>Dyspnea fatigue score</td><td>Systematic review</td><td>Zhang et al.</td><td>2024</td></tr><tr><td>Stroke (minor) and transient ischemic attack</td><td>FSS</td><td>Randomized trial</td><td>Deijle et al.</td><td>2022</td></tr><tr><td>Stroke (subacute, mild to moderate)</td><td>MFI</td><td>Feasibility study</td><td>Clague-Baker et al.</td><td>2022</td></tr><tr><td>Systemic sclerosis</td><td>NRS</td><td>Randomized trial</td><td>Yakut et al.</td><td>2021</td></tr><tr><td>Transverse myelitis</td><td>FAS</td><td>Case report</td><td>Choubisa et al.</td><td>2022</td></tr></tbody></table>

3LNQ, 3-Levels-of-Needs Questionnaire; BFI, Brief Fatigue Inventory; BRS, Borg Rating Scale; CCFS, Childhood Cancer Fatigue Scale; CFS-11, Chalder Fatigue Score; CFQ, Chalder Fatigue Questionnaire/Scale; CIS, Checklist of Individual Strength; CIS-20R, Checklist Individual Strength-Revised; CRQ, Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire; EORTC QLQ-C-30, European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core-30; FACIT-F; Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy - Fatigue Scale; FACT-F, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Fatigue Scale; FAQ, Fatigue Assessment Questionnaire; FAS, Fatigue Assessment Scale; FIS, Fatigue Impact Scale; FQ, Fatigue Questionnaire; FS-A, Fatigue Scale for adolescents; FS-C, Fatigue Scale for a child; FSI, Fatigue Symptom Inventory; FSMC, Fatigue Scale for Motor and Cognitive functions; FSS, Fatigue Severity Scale; HRQoL, Health-Related Quality of Life; KFSS, Krupp Fatigue Severity Scale; LASA, Linear Analog Scale Assessment; MAF, Multidimensional Assessment of Fatigue; MBS, Modified Borg Scale; MFI, Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory; MFIS, Modified Fatigue Impact Scale; MFI-SF, Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory Short Form; MFS, Multidimensional Fatigue Scale; mMRC, Modified British Medical Research Council; MPFSDQ, Modified Pulmonary Functional Status and Dyspnea Questionnaire; MSQOL-54, Multiple Sclerosis Quality of Life-54; NFI-MND, Neurological Fatigue Index-motor neuron disease; NRS, Numerical Rating Scale; ParkFS, Parkinson's Fatigue Scale; PBC-40, primary biliary cholangitis-40 fatigue domain; PedsQL, Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory-Multidimensional Fatigue Scale; PipFS, Piper Fatigue Scale; PipFS-R, Revised Piper Fatigue Scale; PROMIS, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System; PROMs, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measures; RFT, Rotten fatigue test; RPS, Revised Piper Fatigue Scale; VAS, Visual Analogue Scale; VRS, Verbal Rating Scale; WEIMuS, the Würzburg Fatigue Inventory for Multiple Sclerosis

perception, known as subjective fatigue, is assessed in most cases by a general or specific questionnaire, based on the respondent's self-estimation. However, if a primary impairment (pathology) can modify an individual's perception of fatigue, it would seem difficult to consider its dominance over other influencing factors. This is probably why many outcomes have been developed and continue to be revised and modified, as the symptoms are not always clinically describable. Several theories indicate that the sensation of fatigue must be associated with the anatomical brain structures responsible for conscious perception, rather than with

a single peripheral physiological disturbance or altered metabolic state¹⁵⁵.

According to Joseph Levine's theory, there could be an explanatory gap in the fatigue perceived by an individual before and after a change in their health status¹⁵⁶. Knowing an individual's baseline level of fatigue perception could be a 1st step toward understanding which dimensions are most affected in an individual after illness. Conversely, in conditions affecting individuals from an early age (hereditary diseases, cerebral palsy, etc.), it is difficult to distinguish the role played by the disease in the perception of fatigue that
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 3.** Distribution ratio of publications per field. COVID-19, coronavirus disease 2019; MS, multiple sclerosis</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 4.** Distribution ratio of publications per study type.</figcaption></figure>

children develop as soon as they become conscious. In other words, why do children with the same congenital condition not perceive or express fatigue in the same manner?

This consideration leads us to consider other factors that can significantly influence the perception of fatigue. Certain parameters have already been mentioned in various studies, such as anthropometric factors (gender, age), sociocultural factors, and professional factors<sup>157-159</sup>. These intra- and interpersonal experiences could contribute to the development of a representation of fatigue that is specific to each individual and in each dimension. However, this does not diminish the importance of assessing fatigue in patients who are limited in their daily activities and whose quality of life is impaired by this almost invisible, but clearly present symptom.

Due to its frequent occurrence in many chronic diseases, fatigue assessment has become essential in rehabilitation interventions. As we have seen in our study, this appears to be a significant outcome in protocols involving physical

therapists. However, few studies argue for the choice of scale used to measure fatigue, nor do they hypothesize about which specific dimension or aspect of fatigue their intervention might improve. Positive results are reported in several studies, but they appear difficult to reproduce.

At the same time, its assessment appears less standardized in other areas such as musculoskeletal disorders. While physiotherapy can have beneficial effects on motor performance, it would seem a shame not to investigate further the subjective fatigue of individuals to better understand the relationship between performance and perception.

Finally, we have no explicit arguments regarding the disparity of the scales used. While some scales have been specifically developed for a particular pathology, some authors use generic scales in their work. However, we put forward 3 hypotheses that could explain this finding in line with the literature found<sup>160</sup>. The 1st is that the scales are not available or accessible. This may be the case when the use of assessments requires training or when they are
Fatigue outcomes in Cancer

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 5.** Number of fatigue outcomes found in cancer.</figcaption></figure>

BFI, Brief Fatigue Inventory; CCFS, Childhood Cancer Fatigue Scale; CFQ, Chalder Fatigue Questionnaire/Scale; EORTC QLQ-C-30, European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core-30; FACIT-F; Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy - Fatigue Scale; FACT-F, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Fatigue Scale; FAQ, Fatigue Assessment Questionnaire; FAS, Fatigue Assessment Scale; FIS, Fatigue Impact Scale; FS-A, Fatigue Scale for adolescents; FS-C, Fatigue Scale for a child; FSS, Fatigue Severity Scale; LASA, Linear Analog Scale Assessment; MFI, Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory; MFIS, Modified Fatigue Impact Scale; MFI-SF, Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory Short Form; MFS, Multidimensional Fatigue Scale; PedsQL, Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory-Multidimensional Fatigue Scale; PipFS, Piper Fatigue Scale; PipFS-R, Revised Piper fatigue scale; PROMIS, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System; PROMs, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measures; VAS, Visual Analogue Scale

Fatigue outcomes in Multiple Sclerosis

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 6.** Number of fatigue outcomes found in multiple sclerosis.</figcaption></figure>

CIS-20R, Checklist Individual Strength-Revised; FAS, Fatigue Assessment Scale; FIS, Fatigue Impact Scale; FSI, Fatigue Symptom Inventory; FSMC, Fatigue Scale for Motor and Cognitive functions; FSS, Fatigue Severity Scale; MBS, Modified Borg Scale; MFIS, Modified Fatigue Impact Scale; MS, multiple sclerosis; MSQOL-54, Multiple Sclerosis Quality of Life-54; PROMIS, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System; RFT, Rotten fatigue test; WEIMUS, The Würzburg Fatigue Inventory for Multiple Sclerosis

not validated in the required language. The 2nd hypothesis
is the field context. Some scales are longer or more com-
plex to implement within the department. Due to time or
resource constraints, the choice of scales may be reduced
to the assessment of a single dimension or the shortest one
to be administered. Finally, the last hypothesis relates to the
design of the protocol. The physical therapist may be the
evaluator in a trial with a predefined protocol. In this case,
the choice of scale is predetermined and cannot be changed.
On this last point, we considered the possibility that some
protocols may choose, rightly or wrongly, a fatigue scale

simply because it was designed for the target population.
However, in light of all our comments above, we suggest
that the scale chosen should not only reflect the specific
characteristics of the population but also the variable of
fatigue on which the intervention is supposed to be effective.

The key points that emerge from our exploratory study
are as follows:

* Fatigue assessed in rehabilitation must be better defined in the objectives to choose the appropriate outcome for the type of intervention.
<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 7.** Number of fatigue outcomes found in COVID-19.</figcaption></figure>

BRS, Borg Rating Scale; CFQ, Chalder Fatigue Questionnaire/Scale; CFS-11, Chalder Fatigue Score; CIS-F, fatigue severity subscale of the Checklist of Individual Strength; COVID-19, coronavirus disease 2019; FACIT-F, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy – Fatigue Scale; FSS, Fatigue Severity Scale; MBS, Modified Borg Scale; mMRC, Modified British Medical Research Council; VAS, Visual Analogue Scale; MPFSDQ, Modified Pulmonary Functional Status and Dyspnea Questionnaire

* A common guide for clinicians and researchers to choose the most appropriate fatigue measurement scale could contribute to better reproducibility of studies in the future.

* Accessible materials and training would help physical therapists to use the appropriate scales.

* A more standardized assessment of subjective fatigue in minority fields would contribute to a better understanding of the effects of physical therapy on fatigue in general.

* Due to the multidimensional nature of fatigue, research in this field should involve both other areas of rehabilitation and various scientific disciplines.

* Develop an assessment method that also considers an individual's representations of their own fatigue with a qualitative approach[61].

This comprehensive rapid scoping review has provided an initial overview of the various outcomes used in physical therapy and in different fields. We hope that this document will be a useful resource for improving the care of patients undergoing rehabilitation. Future work could build on these observations to develop recommendations and conduct studies using a more comprehensive fatigue assessment. Given the large number of potential articles in other areas of rehabilitation on this topic, a more extensive literature review would also be useful for the next stage.

## Limitations

This scoping review of the literature is time-bound: articles published before 2020 were not included. Articles without results (protocol design), posters, or conference presentations were also not included. Although fatigue is a phenomenon studied worldwide in physiotherapy, only articles in English were included in our research. Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the fact that we limited our research to physiotherapy interventions, our findings do not provide a

comprehensive overview of fatigue assessments used in the rehabilitation field in general. Not all of the recommendations for conducting a scoping review could be met. In particular, the participation of a librarian would have helped to complete the research strategy for an exhaustive search on our topic[7].

*Funding:* This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

*Conflict of Interest:* The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

*Ethics declaration:* This is a scoping review that does not involve human research; no ethics committee approval is required.

## Supplementary Materials:

Appendix 1: Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist.

Appendix 2: Search string strategies for each database.

## References

1) Noakes TD: Fatigue is a brain-derived emotion that regulates the exercise behavior to ensure the protection of whole body homeostasis. *Front Physiol.* 2012; 3: 82.

2) Yoon JH, Park NH, et al.: The demographic features of fatigue in the general population worldwide: a systematic review and meta-analysis. *Front Public Health.* 2023; 11: 1192121.

3) Rosenthal TC, Majeroni BA, et al.: Fatigue: an overview. *Am Fam Physician.* 2008; 78: 1173–1179. https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/2008/1115/p1173.html. (Accessed August 2, 2025.)

4) Poole JL, Murphy SL, et al.: Fatigue as an understudied barrier to participation in life roles. *OTJR (Thorofare, NJ).* 2023; 43: 583–591.
5) Whitehead L: The Measurement of fatigue in chronic illness: a systematic review of unidimensional and multidimensional fatigue measures. *J Pain Symptom Manage*. 2009; 37: 107–128.

6) Billones R, Liwang JK, et al.: Dissecting the fatigue experience: a scoping review of fatigue definitions, dimensions, and measures in non-oncologic medical conditions *Brain Behav Immun Health*. 2021; 15: 100266.

7) Mak S. Thomas A: Steps for Conducting a Scoping Review. *J Grad Med Educ*. 2022; 14: 565-567.

8) Stevens A, Hersi M, et al.: Rapid review method series: interim guidance for the reporting of rapid reviews. *BMJ Evid Based Med*. 2025; 30: 118-123.

9) Tricco AC, Lillie E, et al.: PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. *Ann Intern Med*. 2018; 169: 467-473.

10) Peters MDJ, Marnie C, et al.: Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. *JBI Evid Synth*. 2020; 18: 2119-2126.

11) Ouzzani M, Hammady H, et al.: Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. *Syst Rev*. 2016; 5: 210.

12) Freer A, Williams FR, et al.: A home-based exercise programme attenuates fatigue in primary biliary cholangitis: results from the EXCITED clinical trial. *JHEP Rep*. 2024; 6: 101210.

13) Dasouki S, Quach S, et al.: A non-pharmacological cough therapy for people with interstitial lung diseases: a case report. *Physiother Can*. 2023; 75: 389-394.

14) Chanpimol S, Benson K, et al.: Acceptability and outcomes of an individualized exergaming telePT program for veterans with multiple sclerosis: a pilot study. *Arch Physiother*. 2020; 10: 18.

15) Clague-Baker N, Robinson T, et al.: Adapted cardiac rehabilitation for people with sub-acute, mild-to-moderate stroke: a mixed methods feasibility study. *Physiotherapy*. 2022; 115: 93-101.

16) Asimakos A, Spetsioti S, et al.: Additive benefit of rehabilitation on physical status, symptoms and mental health after hospitalisation for severe COVID-19 pneumonia. *BMJ Open Respir Res*. 2023; 10: e001377.

17) Tâbîrţă A, Bulai M, et al.: Assessment of musculoskeletal pain in medical rehabilitation of Post-Covid-19 patients. *Balneo PRM Res J*. 2023; 14: 549.

18) Lim J, Lu L, et al.: Assessment of self-report, palpation, and surface electromyography dataset during isometric muscle contraction. *Sci Data*. 2024; 11: 208.

19) Adnan R, Roikjaer SG, et al.: At home e-based physical exercise programs in patients with multiple sclerosis: a scoping review. *Front Neurol*. 2024; 15: 1449519.

20) McNeely ML, Chan KM, et al.: Building a bridge to community: a pragmatic randomized trial examining a combined physical therapy and resistance exercise intervention for people after head and neck cancer. *Cancers (Basel)*. 2024; 16: 1758.

21) Kumar G, Kaur D, et al.: Can tele-physiotherapy help in filling treatment gaps during pandemics in multiple sclerosis? *J Family Med Prim Care*. 2024; 13: 4510-4516.

22) Dillen H, Bekkering G, et al.: Clinical effectiveness of rehabilitation in ambulatory care for patients with persisting symptoms after COVID-19: a systematic review. *BMC Infect Dis*. 2023; 23: 419.

23) Wood KC, Bertram J, et al.: Community-based outpatient cancer rehabilitation services for women with gynecologic cancer: acceptability and impact on patient-reported outcomes. *Support Care Cancer*. 2022; 30: 8089-8099.

24) Yazgan YZ, Tarakci E, et al.: Comparison of the effects of two different exergaming systems on balance, functionality, fatigue, and quality of life in people with multiple sclerosis: a randomized controlled trial. *Mult Scler Relat Disord*. 2020; 39: 101902.

25) Mur-Gimeno E, Coll M, et al.: Comparison of water- vs. land-based exercise for improving functional capacity and quality of life in patients living with and beyond breast cancer (the AQUA-FiT study): a randomized controlled trial. *Breast Cancer*. 2024; 31: 815-824.

26) Choubisa CA, Jain M, et al.: Concomitant pre- and post-splenectomy physiotherapy rehabilitation in a 17-year-old patient with beta thalassemia major: a case report. *Cureus*. 2022; 14: e29999.

27) Hendricksen M, Boyer J, et al.: Consultative, proactive physical therapy in early multiple sclerosis. *Int J MS Care*. 2024; 26(Q4): 341-346.

28) Cooley Hidecker MJ, Landers MR, et al.: Coordinated speech therapy, physiotherapy, and pharmaceutical care telehealth for people with Parkinson disease in rural communities: an exploratory, 8-week cohort study for feasibility, safety, and signal of efficacy. *Rural Remote Health*. 2022; 22: 6679.

29) Hamzeh H, Kelly C, et al.: Development of a core outcome set for physiotherapy trials in adults with bronchiectasis (the COS-PHyBE study): A Delphi study and consensus meeting. *Heliyon*. 2024; 10: e34101.

30) Correia FD, Molinos M, et al.: Digital rehabilitation for acute angle sprains: prospective longitudinal cohort study. *JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol*. 2021; 8: e31247.

31) Wang J, Chen X, et al.: Does aquatic physical therapy affect the rehabilitation of breast cancer in women? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. *PLoS One*. 2022; 17: e0272337.

32) Saklıca D, Vardar-Yağlı N, et al.: Does cognitive function affect functional capacity and perceived fatigue severity after exercise in patients with coronary artery disease? *Physiother Res Int*. 2024; 29: e2139.

33) Gray L, Sindall P, et al.: Does resistance training ameliorate cancer-related fatigue in cancer survivors? A systematic review with meta-analysis. *Disabil Rehabil*. 2024; 46: 2213-2222.

34) Elnaggar RK, Mahmoud WS, et al.: Effect of adaptive variable-resistance training on chemotherapy-induced sarcopenia, fatigue, and functional restriction in pediatric survivors of acute lymphoblastic leukemia: a prospective randomized controlled trial. *Support Care Cancer*. 2025; 33: 214.

35) Mercier LJ, McIntosh SJ, et al.: Effect of aerobic exercise on symptom burden and quality of life in adults with persisting post-concussive symptoms: the ACTBI randomized controlled trial. *Arch Phys Med Rehabil*. 2025; 106: 195-205.

36) Deijle IA, Hemmes R, et al.: Effect of an exercise intervention on global cognition after transient ischemic attack or minor stroke: the MoveIT randomized controlled trial. *BMC Neurol*. 2022; 22: 289.

37) Torres-Costoso A, Martínez-Vizcaíno V, et al.: Effect of exercise on fatigue in multiple sclerosis: a network meta-analysis
comparing different types of exercise. Arch Phys Med Rehabil.
2022; 103: 970-987.e18.

38) Nordén KR, Semb AG, et al.: Effect of high-intensity interval training in physiotherapy primary care for patients with inflammatory arthritis: the ExeHeart randomised controlled trial. RMD Open. 2024; 10: e003440.

39) Knapova V, Grosserova B, et al.: Effect of individual physiotherapy and telerehabilitation on back pain and quality of life in people with multiple sclerosis with mild and moderate disability. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2025; 94: 106258.

40) Karakas H, Kahraman T, et al.: Effect of telerehabilitation-based motor imagery training on pain and related factors in people with multiple sclerosis: randomized controlled pilot trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2025; 106: 562-572.

41) Dastan S, Ertekin Ö, et al.: Effect of the synchronized telerehabilitation-based upper extremity training program on hand-arm functions in people with multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2025; 98: 106438.

42) Mohamed RA, Mohamed ESH, et al.: Effect of two different rehabilitation approaches on pulmonary functional tests, neuromuscular functions and quality of life in juvenile myasthenia-gravis: a randomized controlled trial study. Medicina (Kaunas). 2022; 58: 374.

43) Luo Z, Qian H, et al.: Effectiveness and safety of inspiratory muscle training in patients with pulmonary hypertension: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2022; 9: 999422.

44) Kovelis D, Gomes ARS, et al.: Effectiveness and safety of supervised home-based physical training in patients with COPD on long-term home oxygen therapy: a randomized trial. Chest. 2020; 158: 965-972.

45) You DS, Ziadni MS, et al.: Effectiveness of a multidisciplinary rehabilitation program in real-world patients with chronic back pain: a pilot cohort data analysis. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2021; 34: 965-973.

46) Lamberti N, Straudi S, et al.: Effectiveness of blood flow-restricted slow walking on mobility in severe multiple sclerosis: a pilot randomized trial. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2020; 30: 1999-2009.

47) Al-Mhanna SB, Wan Ghazali WS, et al.: Effectiveness of physical activity on immunity markers and quality of life in cancer patient: a systematic review. PeerJ. 2022; 10: e13664.

48) Hansen A, Pedersen CB, et al.: Effectiveness of physical therapy-and occupational therapy-based rehabilitation in people who have glioma and are undergoing active anticancer treatment: single-blind, randomized controlled trial. Phys Ther. 2020; 100: 564-574.

49) Choubisa CA, Samal S: Effectiveness of rehabilitative physiotherapeutic intervention in case of acute onset quadriparesis following transverse myelitis – a case report. Med Sci. 2022; 26: 1-6.

50) Ozdogar AT, Baba C, et al.: Effects and safety of exergaming in persons with multiple sclerosis during corticosteroid treatment: a pilot study. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2022; 63: 103823.

51) Şahın H, Naz İ, et al.: Effects of a home-based pulmonary rehabilitation program with and without telecoaching on health-related outcomes in COVID-19 survivors: a randomized controlled clinical study. J Bras Pneumol. 2023; 49: e20220107.

52) Morais NI, Palhares LC, et al.: Effects of a physiotherapeutic protocol in cardiorespiratory, muscle strength, aerobic capacity and quality of life after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Hematol Transfus Cell Ther. 2023; 45: 154-158.

53) Porserud A, Karlsson P, et al.: Effects of an exercise intervention in primary care after robot-assisted radical cystectomy for urinary bladder cancer: a randomised controlled trial. BMC Cancer. 2024; 24: 891.

54) Ravesloot C, Myers A, et al.: Effects of an exercise intervention on participation reported by people with disabilities: a mixed methods randomized trial. Disabil Health J. 2022; 15: 101272.

55) Smith C, Farhat R, et al.: Effects of an exercise program during pediatric stem cell transplantation: a randomized controlled trial. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2022; 69: e29618.

56) van de Wiel HJ, Stuiver MM, et al.: Effects of and lessons learned from an internet-based physical activity support program (with and without physiotherapist telephone counselling) on physical activity levels of breast and prostate cancer survivors: the PAB-LO randomized controlled trial. Cancers (Basel). 2021; 13: 3665.

57) Fonseca ACS, Faria PC, et al.: Effects of aquatic physiotherapy or health education program in women with fibromyalgia: a randomized clinical trial. Physiother Theory Pract. 2021; 37: 620-632.

58) Dülger E, Mut M, et al.: Effects of combined aerobic-strength training and yoga on quality of life and related parameters in women with pituitary adenoma after surgery: a randomized crossover study. Eur J Endocrinol. 2022; 186: 667-675.

59) Beqaj S, Mačak Hadžiomerović A, et al.: Effects of physiotherapy on rehabilitation and quality of life in patients hospitalized for COVID-19: a review of findings from key studies published 2020-2022. Med Sci Monit. 2022; 28: e938141.

60) Yoo SA, Kim CY, et al.: Effects of progressive muscle relaxation therapy with home exercise on pain, fatigue, and stress in subjects with fibromyalgia syndrome: a pilot randomized controlled trial. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2022; 35: 289-299.

61) Gonçalves F, Magalhães B: Effects of prolonged interruption of rehabilitation routines in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis patients. Palliat Support Care. 2022; 20: 369-374.

62) Ozsoy-Unubol T, Ata E, et al.: Effects of robot-assisted gait training in patients with multiple sclerosis: a single-blinded randomized controlled study. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2022; 101: 768-774.

63) Družbicki M, Guzik A, et al.: Effects of robotic exoskeleton-aided gait training in the strength, body balance, and walking speed in individuals with multiple sclerosis: a single-group preliminary study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2021; 102: 175-184.

64) Yakut H, Özalevli S, et al.: Effects of supervised exercise program and home exercise program in patients with systemic sclerosis: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Rheum Dis. 2021; 24: 1200-1212.

65) Blázquez-Fernández A, López-Hazas-Jiménez G, et al.: Effects of the powerball® system on muscle strength, coordination, fatigue, functionality and quality of life in people with multiple sclerosis. A randomized clinical trial. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2024; 21: 33.

66) Hao J, Li Y, et al.: Effects of virtual reality on physical, cognitive, and psychological outcomes in cancer rehabilitation:
a systematic review and meta-analysis. *Support Care Cancer*. 2023; 31: 112.

67) Flachenecker P, Bures AK, et al.: Efficacy of an internet-based program to promote physical activity and exercise after inpatient rehabilitation in persons with multiple sclerosis: a randomized, single-blind, controlled study. *Int J Environ Res Public Health*. 2020; 17: 4544.

68) Deodato M, Qualizza C, et al.: Efficacy of dual-task augmented reality rehabilitation in non-hospitalized adults with self-reported long COVID fatigue and cognitive impairment: a pilot study. *Neurol Sci*. 2024; 45: 1325-1333.

69) Trommer M, Marnitz S, et al.: Exercise interventions for adults with cancer receiving radiation therapy alone. *Cochrane Libr*. 2023; 3: CD013448.

70) McCourt O, Fisher A, et al.: Exercise prehabilitation for people with myeloma undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation: results from PERCEPT pilot randomised controlled trial. *Acta Oncol*. 2023; 62: 696-705.

71) Elhusein AM, Fadlalmola HA, et al.: Exercise-based gaming in patients with multiple sclerosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. *Belitung Nurs J*. 2024; 10: 1-14.

72) Denti M, Pecorari A, et al.: Facing the COVID-19 pandemic: an Italian feasibility study of a mixed in-person/telerehabilitation intervention for cancer patients. *Cancer Med*. 2024; 13: e70022.

73) Davidson I, Parker ZJ: Falls in people post-Guillain-Barré syndrome in the United Kingdom: a national cross-sectional survey of community based adults. *Health Soc Care Community*. 2022; 30: e2590-e2603.

74) Mack A, Arrigo M, et al.: Fatigue and functional outcomes in cancer rehabilitation. *Support Care Cancer*. 2021; 29: 8069-8076.

75) Cano-Uceda A, García-Fernández P, et al.: From evidence to practice: a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effects of supervised exercise on fatigue in breast and prostate cancer survivors. *Appl Sci (Basel)*. 2025; 15: 8399.

76) Andries A, Van Walsem MR, et al.: Functional ability and physical activity in hereditary neuromuscular diseases. *J Neuromuscul Dis*. 2022; 9: 437-446.

77) Milne SC, Roberts M, et al.: Goal-directed rehabilitation versus standard care for individuals with hereditary cerebellar ataxia: a multicenter, single-blind, randomized controlled superiority trial. *Ann Neurol*. 2025; 97: 409-424.

78) Bhagwatkar SS, Yadav V, et al.: Graded mobilization with pacing technique for functional mobility in a preoperative Marfan syndrome case of aortic root dilation: a case report. *Cureus*. 2024; 16: e54591.

79) Liaghat B, Skou ST, et al.: Heavy shoulder strengthening exercise in people with hypermobility spectrum disorder (HSD) and long-lasting shoulder symptoms: a feasibility study. *Pilot Feasibility Stud*. 2020; 6: 97.

80) Christensen J, Hessner AL, et al.: High intensity functional training for patients diagnosed with cancer: a study evaluating the feasibility of a pragmatic intervention. *J Sci Sport Exerc*. 2025; 7: 206-214.

81) Paneroni M, Scalvini S, et al.: Home-based exercise program for people with residual disability following hospitalization for COVID-19: randomized control trial. *Ann Phys Rehabil Med*. 2024; 67: 101815.

82) Ibrahim AM, Wahba NMI, et al.: Impact of a comprehensive rehabilitation palliative care program on the quality of life of patients with terminal cancer and their informal caregivers: a quasi-experimental study. *BMC Nurs*. 2024; 23: 357.

83) Clark G, Vuilleumier N, et al.: Impact of an interdisciplinary approach to the management of refractory dyspnoea on patient quality of life by a non-palliative respiratory care team: a pilot study. *Respiration*. 2025; 104: 615-625.

84) Invernizzi M, de Sire A, et al.: Impact of rehabilitation on breast cancer related fatigue: a pilot study. *Front Oncol*. 2020; 10: 556718.

85) Torchio A, Fusari G, et al.: Impact of usual-care physiotherapy on physical activity and self-efficacy in people with multiple sclerosis: an observational longitudinal study. *Int J MS Care*. 2025; 27(Q2):144-153.

86) Finch A, Ashford S, et al.: Implementing a physiotherapy-led prehabilitation service and improving inpatient rehabilitation for people with complex colorectal cancer: a service evaluation project. *Int J Ther Rehabil*. 2024; 31: 1-17.

87) Felser S, Bonke LA, et al.: Individualized home training in head and neck cancer patients is safe and has positive short- and medium-term effects -results of a multicenter, single-arm intervention trial (OSHO #94). *Front Oncol*. 2025; 15: 1602532.

88) Zilmer CK, Kristensen MT, et al.: Intensified acute in-hospital physiotherapy for patients after hip fracture surgery: a pragmatic, randomized, controlled feasibility trial. *Disabil Rehabil*. 2024; 46: 4725-4734.

89) Bonnyaud C, Hameau S, et al.: Intensive interdisciplinary specialized rehabilitation or regular physiotherapy for multiple sclerosis? A randomised controlled trial with economic evaluation. *Ann Phys Rehabil Med*. 2025; 68: 101898.

90) Nguyen JVK, McKay A, et al.: Interdisciplinary rehabilitation for persisting post-concussion symptoms after mTBI: N=15 single case experimental design. *Ann Phys Rehabil Med*. 2023; 66: 101777.

91) Sütçü G, Kılınç M: Investigation of the effects of game supported rehabilitation program on motor and cognitive skills in a patient with co-occurrence of multiple sclerosis and Parkinson's disease: a case report. *Turk Noroloji Dergisi*. 2021; 27: 195-200.

92) Taul-Madsen L, Connolly L, et al.: Is aerobic or resistance training the most effective exercise modality for improving lower extremity physical function and perceived fatigue in people with multiple sclerosis? A systematic review and meta-analysis. *Arch Phys Med Rehabil*. 2021; 102: 2032-2048.

93) Alaca N, Karayazi KT, et al.: Kinesiophobia, physical activity levels and barriers in breast cancer patients, survivors, and healthy controls: a case-control analysis. *J Pak Med Assoc*. 2024; 74: 1428-1436.

94) Nilsson M, Arving C, et al.: Moderate-to-vigorous intensity physical activity is associated with modified fatigue during and after cancer treatment. *Support Care Cancer*. 2020; 28: 3343-3350.

95) Weigl M, Beeck S, et al.: Multidisciplinary rehabilitation with a focus on physiotherapy in patients with Post Covid19 condition: an observational pilot study. *Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci*. 2024; 274: 2003-2014.
96) Souza AAd, Silva STd, et al.: Muscle strengthening in individuals with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis: a systematic review with meta-analyses. PLoS One. 2025; 20: e0320788.

97) Ghosh S, Tucak C, et al.: Non-invasive brain stimulation enhances the effect of physiotherapy for balance and mobility impairment in people with multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2024; 92: 106149.

98) Høgdal N, Eidemak I, et al.: Occupational therapy and physiotherapy interventions in palliative care: a cross-sectional study of patient-reported needs. *BMJ Support Palliat Care*. 2024; 14: e749–e757.

99) Stępień A, Sobińska M, et al.: Pandemic decrease of in-person physiotherapy as a factor in parent perceived decline in function in children with neuromuscular disorders. J Pediatr Rehabil Med. 2022; 15: 677–689.

100) Hrušková N, Berchová Bímová K, et al.: People with newly diagnosed multiple sclerosis benefit from a complex preventative intervention-a single group prospective study with follow up. Front Neurol. 2024; 15: 1373401.

101) Ernst M, Folkerts AK, et al.: Physical exercise for people with Parkinson's disease: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Cochrane Libr. 2023; 1: CD013856.

102) O'Neill L, Bennett AE, et al.: Physical recovery in the first six months following oesophago-gastric cancer surgery. Identifying rehabilitative needs: a qualitative interview study. Disabil Rehabil. 2021; 43: 1396–1403.

103) Penna GB, Otto DM, et al.: Physical rehabilitation for the management of cancer-related fatigue during cytotoxic treatment: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Support Care Cancer. 2023; 31: 129.

104) Ospina PA, Wiart L, et al.: Physical rehabilitation practices for children and adolescents with cancer in Canada. Physiother Can. 2020; 72: 207–216.

105) Rashid FA, Anwar W, et al.: Physical rehabilitation program for cardiorespiratory health and quality of life among breast cancer survivors in UAE: a randomized control trial. BMC Cancer. 2025; 25: 705.

106) Mowry H, Perez E, et al.: Physical therapy evaluation and treatment of functional movement disorders: a case series. Physiother Theory Pract. 2025 Jun 3: 1–12. doi: 10.1080/09593985.2025.2514126. (epub ahead of print)

107) Silva ST, Costa IM, et al.: Physical therapy for the management of global function, fatigue and quality of life in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: systematic review and meta-analyses. BMJ Open. 2024; 14: e076541.

108) Tedeschi R, Donati D, et al.: Physical therapy interventions for gait and balance in Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease: a scoping review. Life (Basel). 2025; 15: 1036.

109) Kelch A, Harro C: Physical therapy interventions in a patient with nontraumatic incomplete spinal cord injury secondary to metastatic lung cancer: a case report. Physiother Theory Pract. 2022; 38: 2230–2240.

110) Ospina PA, McComb A, et al.: Physical therapy interventions, other than general physical exercise interventions, in children and adolescents before, during and following treatment for cancer. Cochrane Libr. 2021; 8: CD012924.

111) A.M.C. P, M.B.C. S, et al.: Physical therapy rehabilitation after hospital discharge in patients affected by COVID-19: a systematic review. BMC Infect Dis. 2023; 23: 535.

112) Hong S, Milross M, et al.: Physiotherapy mobility and walking management of uncomplicated coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery patients: a survey of clinicians' perspectives in Australia and New Zealand. Physiother Theory Pract. 2020; 36: 226–240.

113) Postol N, Spratt NJ, et al.: Physiotherapy using a free-standing robotic exoskeleton for patients with spinal cord injury: a feasibility study. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2021; 18: 180.

114) Garbin AJ, Falvey JR, et al.: Progressive multicomponent intervention for older adults in home health settings following hospitalization: randomized clinical trial. Phys Ther. 2024; 104: pzae169.

115) Volckaerts T, Vissers D, et al.: Randomised, controlled, open-label pragmatic trial evaluating changes in functional exercise capacity after primary care PULmonary REhabilitation in patients with long COVID: protocol of the PuRe-COVID trial in Belgium. BMJ Open. 2023; 13: e071098.

116) Gauchez L, Boyle SLL, et al.: Recommended physiotherapy modalities for oncology patients with palliative needs and its influence on patient-reported outcome measures: a systematic review. Cancers (Basel). 2024; 16: 3371.

117) Anderson E, Parslow R, et al.: Recruiting adolescents with chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis to internet-delivered therapy: internal pilot within a randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2020; 22: e17768.

118) Campos MC, Nery T, et al.: Rehabilitation improves persistent symptoms of COVID-19: a nonrandomized, controlled, open study in Brazil. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2024; 103: 194–202.

119) Pouliopoulou DV, Macdermid JC, et al.: Rehabilitation interventions for physical capacity and quality of life in adults with Post-COVID-19 condition: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open. 2023; 6: e2333838.

120) Coughenour E, Alkhameys F, et al.: Rehabilitation of pelvic floor dysfunction after radiation therapy for a rare gynecological cancer: a case report. Gynecol Oncol Rep. 2024; 56: 101534.

121) Fossmo HL, Ørstavik K, et al.: Rehabilitation technology in assessment and treatment of arm and hand function in myotonic dystrophy type 1: a single subject experimental design study. J Neuromuscul Dis. Dec 20:22143602241301675. doi: 10.1177/22143602241301675. (epub ahead of print)

122) Bahçaci U, Uysal SA, et al.: Relaxation training via tele-rehabilitation program in patients with breast cancer receiving chemotherapy during COVID-19. Digit Health. 2024; 10: 20552076241261909.

123) Tay MRJ, Wong CJ, et al.: Return to work in breast cancer patients following an interdisciplinary rehabilitation program in a community-based cancer rehabilitation center: a pilot study. Healthcare (Basel). 2024; 12: 805.

124) Vira P, Samuel SR, et al.: Role of physiotherapy in hospice care of patients with advanced cancer: a systematic review. Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2021; 38: 503–511.

125) Page JS, Edgar DW, et al.: Session rating of perceived exertion is a valid method to monitor intensity of exercise in adults with acute burn injuries. Eur Burn J. 2025; 6: 4.

126) van Vulpen JK, Hiensch AE, et al.: Supervised exercise after oesophageal cancer surgery: the PERFECT multicentre randomized clinical trial. Br J Surg. 2021; 108: 786–796.
127) Shah N, Shrivastava M, et al.: Supervised, individualised exercise reduces fatigue and improves strength and quality of life more than unsupervised home exercise in people with chronic Guillain-Barré syndrome: a randomised trial. J Physiother. 2022; 68: 123–129.

128) Mur-Gimeno E, Postigo-Martin P, et al.: Systematic review of the effect of aquatic therapeutic exercise in breast cancer survivors. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2022; 31: e13535.

129) Najafi P, Motl RW, et al.: Tele-exercise in multiple sclerosis: Systematic review and meta-analysis of effects on fatigue, depression, and overall health. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2025; 93: 106225.

130) Goncalves Leite Rocco P, Reategui-Rivera CM, et al.: Telemedicine applications for cancer rehabilitation: scoping review. JMIR Cancer. 2024; 10: e56969.

131) Petracca M, Petsas N, et al.: Telerehabilitation and onsite rehabilitation effectively improve quality of life, fatigue, balance, and cognition in people with multiple sclerosis: an interventional study. Front Neurol. 2024; 15: 1394867.

132) Valverde-Martínez MÁ, López-Liria R, et al.: Telerehabilitation, a viable option in patients with persistent post-COVID syndrome: a systematic review. Healthcare (Basel). 2023; 11: 187.

133) Krishna Alaparthi G, Bairappareddy KC, et al.: The clinical practice adopted by physiotherapists in managing head and neck cancer subjects within the United Arab Emirates: a survey. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2022; 23: 851–860.

134) Fereydounnia S, Shadmehr A, et al.: The Comparison of the Effectiveness of respiratory physiotherapy plus myofascial release therapy versus respiratory physiotherapy alone on cardiorespiratory parameters in patients with COVID-19. Int J Ther Massage Bodywork. 2022; 15: 4–14.

135) Amedoro A, Berardi A, et al.: The effect of aquatic physical therapy on patients with multiple sclerosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2020; 41: 102022.

136) Celikel R, Ramazanoglu E, et al.: The effect of motor learning-based telerehabilitation on quality of life of children with cerebral palsy during the COVID-19 pandemic. Arch Pediatr. 2023; 30: 383–388.

137) Vitoulas S, Konstantis V, et al.: The effect of physiotherapy interventions in the workplace through active micro-break activities for employees with standing and sedentary work. Healthcare (Basel). 2022; 10: 2073.

138) Yucekaya B, Kemer SN, et al.: The effect of proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation techniques on pain, motor functions, fatigue and health related quality of life in individuals with multiple sclerosis: a randomized, single-blind study. Neurol Res. 2025; 47: 537–549.

139) Vural P, Zenginler Yazgan Y, et al.: The effects of online exercise training on physical functions and quality of life in patients with pediatric-onset multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2023; 74: 104710.

140) Zhang YS, Zhang K, et al.: The effects of respiratory muscle training on respiratory function and functional capacity in patients with early stroke: a meta-analysis. Eur Rev Aging Phys Act. 2024; 21: 4.

141) Wormgoor MEA, Rodenburg SC: The evidence base for physiotherapy in myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome when considering post-exertional malaise: a systematic review and narrative synthesis. J Transl Med. 2021; 19: 1.

142) Mass Kokolevich Z, Crowe M, et al.: The impact of physiotherapy on symptoms and quality of life in working aged adults with long COVID: a systematic review. Phys Ther Rev. 2024; 29: 252–265.

143) Andrejeva J, Mockute E, et al.: The impact of WATSU as physiotherapy method on fatigue for people diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. Acta Balneologica. 2023; 65: 15–24.

144) Jerbi SHM, Alanazi SNS, et al.: The role of physiotherapy in the management of lymphoma patients: systematic review. Pharmacophore. 2022; 13: 142–147.

145) Thompson DP, Antcliff D, et al.: The role of self-efficacy and catastrophizing in explaining improvements in disability, pain and fatigue among patients with chronic widespread pain treated with physiotherapy: an exploratory analysis. Physiotherapy. 2022; 114: 96–102.

146) Dilekçi E, Özkuk K, et al.: The short-term effects of balneotherapy on pain, disability and fatigue in patients with chronic low back pain treated with physical therapy: a randomized controlled trial. Complement Ther Med. 2020; 54: 102550.

147) Accogli MA, Denti M, et al.: Therapeutic education and physical activity are feasible and safe in hematologic cancer patients referred to chemotherapy: results of a randomized controlled trial. Support Care Cancer. 2023; 31: 61.

148) Sarmento A, Adodo R, et al.: Virtual pulmonary rehabilitation approaches in patients with post COVID syndrome: a pilot study. BMC Pulm Med. 2024; 24: 139.

149) Minns Lowe CJ, Kelly P, et al.: "WALK30X5": a feasibility study of a physiotherapy walking programme for people with mild to moderate musculoskeletal conditions. Physiotherapy. 2020; 107: 275–285.

150) Lysogorskaia E, Ivanov T, et al.: Yoga vs physical therapy in multiple sclerosis: results of randomized controlled trial and the training protocol. Ann Neurosci. 2023; 30: 242–250.

151) Maughan D, Toth M: Discerning primary and secondary factors responsible for clinical fatigue in multisystem diseases. Biology (Basel). 2014; 3: 606–622.

152) Ceban F, Ling S, et al.: Fatigue and cognitive impairment in Post-COVID-19 syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Brain Behav Immun. 2022; 101: 93–135.

153) Millet GY, Bertrand MF, et al.: Measuring objective fatigability and autonomic dysfunction in clinical populations: How and why? Front Sports Act Living. 2023; 5: 1140833.

154) Seibert S, Eckert I, et al.: Validity of the test for attentional performance in neurological post-COVID condition. Sci Rep. 2025; 15: 24208.

155) Gibson AS, Baden DA, et al.: The Conscious perception of the sensation of fatigue. Sports Med. 2003; 33: 167–176.

156) Levine J: Materialism and qualia: the explanatory gap. Pac Philos Q. 1983; 64: 354–361.

157) Karasz A, McKinley PS: Cultural differences in conceptual models of everyday fatigue: a vignette study. J Health Psychol. 2007; 12: 613–626.

158) Åhsberg E: Dimensions of fatigue in different working populations. Scand J Psychol. 2000; 41: 231–241.
159) Hunter SK: Sex differences in human fatigability: mechanisms and insight to physiological responses. *Acta Physiol (Oxf)*. 2014; 210: 768-789.

160) Gawthorne J, Curtis K, et al.: The barriers and enablers to implementing nurse-initiated protocols in the emergency

department: a focus group study. *J Clin Nurs*. 2025; 34: 2375-2385.

161) Dany L, Urdapilleta I, et al.: Free associations and social representations: some reflections on rank-frequency and importance-frequency methods. *Qual Quant*. 2015; 49: 489-507.