Table 4 COSMIN standard summary of findings for each study
From: A meta-analysis of measurement properties of the Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool (WOMET)
PROM (ref) | Summary | Overall rating | Quality of evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
Structural validity | |||
 WOMET (Kirkley et al. [2]) |  | No info available |  |
 WOMET (Shivonen et al. [11]) |  | No info available |  |
 WOMET (Celik et al. [12]) |  | No info available |  |
 WOMET (Tong et al. [13]) |  | No info available |  |
 WOMET (van der Wal et al. [14]) |  | No info available |  |
 WOMET (Sgroi et al. [15]) |  | No info available |  |
Internal consistency | |||
 WOMET (Kirkley et al. [2]) | Cronbach’s α = 0.92 | Sufficient | Low |
 WOMET (Shivonen et al. [11]) | Cronbach’s α = 0.75–0.92 | Insufficient | Low |
 WOMET (Celik et al. [12]) | Cronbach’s α = 0.89 | Sufficient | Low |
 WOMET (Tong et al. [13]) | Cronbach’s α = 0.90 | Insufficient | Low |
 WOMET (van der Wal et al. [14]) | Cronbach’s α = 0.79–0.87 | Sufficient | Low |
 WOMET (Sgroi et al. [15]) | Cronbach’s α = 0.92 | Insufficient | Low |
Cross-cultural validity | |||
 WOMET (Kirkley et al. [2]) |  | No info available |  |
 WOMET (Shivonen et al. [11]) |  | No info available |  |
 WOMET (Celik et al. [12]) |  | insufficient | Low |
 WOMET (Tong et al. [13]) |  | No info available |  |
 WOMET (van der Wal et al. [14]) |  | No info available |  |
 WOMET (Sgroi et al. [15]) |  | No info available |  |
Reliability | |||
 WOMET (Kirkley et al. [2]) | Test-retest ICC = 0.73–0.87 | Sufficient | High |
 WOMET (Shivonen et al. [11]) |  | No info available |  |
 WOMET (Celik et al. [12]) | Test-retest ICC = 0.86 |  | Moderate |
 WOMET (Tong et al. [13]) | Test-retest ICC = 0.94 | Sufficient | Moderate |
 WOMET (van der Wal et al. [14]) | Test-retest ICC = 0.78 | Sufficient | Moderate |
 WOMET (Sgroi et al. [15]) | Test-retest ICC = 0.90 | Sufficient | High |
Measurement error | |||
 WOMET (Kirkley et al. [2]) |  | No info available |  |
 WOMET (Shivonen et al. [11]) |  | No info available |  |
 WOMET (Celik et al. [12]) | SEM = 32.7; MDC = 103.2 | Insufficient | Moderate |
 WOMET (Tong et al. [13]) |  | No info available |  |
 WOMET (van der Wal et al. [14]) | SDC = 20.5; MIC = 14.7 | Insufficient | High |
 WOMET (Sgroi et al. [15]) | SEM = 4.6; MDC = 12.7 | Insufficient | Moderate |
Hypotheses testing | |||
 WOMET (Kirkley et al. [2]) | Predefined hypotheses were confirmed | Sufficient | Moderate |
 WOMET (Shivonen et al. [11]) | Hypotheses were significant | Sufficient | Low |
 WOMET (Celik et al. [12]) |  | No info available |  |
 WOMET (Tong et al. [13]) | Hypotheses were significant | Sufficient | Low |
 WOMET (van der Wal et al. [14]) | 11 out 14 hypotheses confirmed | Sufficient | High |
 WOMET (Sgroi et al. [15]) | Predefined hypotheses were confirmed | Sufficient | Moderate |
Responsiveness | |||
 WOMET (Kirkley et al. [2]) | SRM = 0.65 | Insufficient | Low |
 WOMET (Shivonen et al. [11]) | SRM = 0.90 | Insufficient | Low |
 WOMET (Celik et al. [12]) |  | No info available |  |
 WOMET (Tong et al. [13]) | SRM =1.11 | Insufficient | Low |
 WOMET (van der Wal et al. [14]) | r = 0.78 | Sufficient | High |
 WOMET (Sgroi et al. [15]) |  | No info available |  |