The Wells Score Calculator

1. In a study involving 1135 patients, the Wells Score was found to be only slightly better than chance in discriminating for the diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis (DVT). However, its performance was worse compared to previous studies ^[2].
2. Another study focusing on 103 pregnant women found that the Wells Score was not effective in predicting pulmonary embolism (PE), nor was the Revised Geneva Score^[3].
3. A meta-analysis of 633 prospective studies, encompassing 595 patients, revealed that the Wells Score demonstrated powerful discrimination capabilities for identifying PE and stratifying patients based on risk^[4].
4. In the context of patients with Covid, the Wells Score was found to be misleading or not useful at best. Even patients with low scores were diagnosed with PE at almost the same rate as the patients with elevated scores. The score exhibited "non-discriminating values with an AUC (area under the curve) of 0.54"^[5].

Please note that these phrases are based on the information provided in the snippets and should be used with caution, as the snippets may not represent the complete picture or consensus on the performance of the Wells Score.

The Wells Score takes into account variables such as age, alternative diagnoses less likely than PE, history of deep vein thrombosis or PE, recent surgery or immobilization, clinical signs and symptoms of deep vein thrombosis, and hemoptysis. Each variable is assigned a certain number of points based on its relevance in predicting PE.

Similarly, the Geneva Score also considers various clinical factors, including clinical signs and symptoms, risk factors for deep vein thrombosis, and alternative diagnoses. Points are assigned to each variable, and the cumulative score determines the probability of PE.

When comparing the two scores, there are some differences in the variables included and the points assigned. The Wells Score tends to place more emphasis on personal history, recent surgery or immobilization, and clinical signs and symptoms, while the Geneva Score focuses on clinical signs, risk factors, and alternative diagnoses. Additionally, the scoring thresholds for categorizing patients into low, intermediate, or high probability groups may vary between the Wells Score and the Geneva Score.

It is important to note that while both scores are widely used, the Wells Score is more commonly employed in clinical practice. This may be due to its simplicity and ease of use. However, the choice of which score to use may vary based on local guidelines and the preference of healthcare professionals.

In the cited study that compared the Wells Score and the Geneva Score, it was observed that the Wells Score exhibited lower sensitivity but higher specificity compared to the Geneva Score.^[1] These differences could potentially be attributed to the Wells Score's inclusion of more subjective discerning factors in its calculation.

Still, the authors note that the Wells Score remains an important tool for reducing the the number of unnecessary scans and acting as a complementary assessment tool alongside current guidelines.