Start learning
Medical calculators
Emergency care
The Geneva Scoring System for Pulmonary Embolism (PE) is a clinical tool used to assess the probability of a patient having a PE based on various clinical features and risk factors. It was developed in 2001 in Geneva, Switzerland, and is widely utilized in medical practice to aid in the diagnosis and management of PE.
The scoring system takes into account several clinical parameters and assigns points based on their association with PE. These parameters typically include the presence of specific signs and symptoms such as dyspnea (shortness of breath), chest pain, and hemoptysis (coughing up blood), as well as risk factors like immobilization, history of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or PE, surgery within the past four weeks, and active malignancy, but the factors taken into account vary based on the type of calculator used
Based on the cumulative score obtained from the assessed parameters, patients are categorized into three probability groups: low, intermediate, or high. The probability groups help guide further diagnostic workup and treatment decisions. For instance, patients with a low probability may undergo additional testing only if there is a high clinical suspicion, while those in the intermediate or high probability groups may require further imaging studies, such as a computed tomography pulmonary angiogram (CTPA), to confirm or rule out the presence of a PE.
The Geneva Scoring System for PE is a valuable clinical tool that assists healthcare professionals in risk stratification and decision-making, aiding in the timely and accurate diagnosis of this potentially life-threatening condition. It is important to note that the scoring system is just one component of a comprehensive diagnostic approach, and clinical judgment should always be exercised in conjunction with the scoring system's results.
For further information on the correct diagnosis and treatment of PE or DVT, please consult your hospital’s guidelines.
Please note that a low simplified Geneva score does not completely rule out the possibility of a pulmonary embolism (PE) even if D-dimers come out as negative.[6] The score is still better than the Wells socre, according to some studies.[3] The other Geneva scores listed above and below are more specific at low values.
Also do note that the Pregnancy adapted Geneva Score was not tested on other patient categories. For pregnant women, the Area under the Curve (AUC) was 0.795, at least as good as the newly revised score.[5]
Performance of The Geneva Score
It is important to note that while the Geneva score has shown good accuracy in predicting the likelihood of PE in several studies, its performance may vary depending on factors such as patient population and study design. It is also important to consider other relevant factors when making a diagnosis. It seems that the score has a higher accuracy for elderly patients.
Additionally, due to the score’s slightly lower accuracy in younger patients, a new score specifically designed for pregnant patients has been developed to try to improve the accuracy in more categories generally at a higher risk for PE.[5]
The Wells Score vs The Geneva Scoring System
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.
The Geneva Scoring System for Pulmonary Embolism (PE) is a clinical tool used to assess the probability of a patient having a PE based on various clinical features and risk factors. It was developed in 2001 in Geneva, Switzerland, and is widely utilized in medical practice to aid in the diagnosis and management of PE.
The scoring system takes into account several clinical parameters and assigns points based on their association with PE. These parameters typically include the presence of specific signs and symptoms such as dyspnea (shortness of breath), chest pain, and hemoptysis (coughing up blood), as well as risk factors like immobilization, history of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or PE, surgery within the past four weeks, and active malignancy, but the factors taken into account vary based on the type of calculator used
Based on the cumulative score obtained from the assessed parameters, patients are categorized into three probability groups: low, intermediate, or high. The probability groups help guide further diagnostic workup and treatment decisions. For instance, patients with a low probability may undergo additional testing only if there is a high clinical suspicion, while those in the intermediate or high probability groups may require further imaging studies, such as a computed tomography pulmonary angiogram (CTPA), to confirm or rule out the presence of a PE.
The Geneva Scoring System for PE is a valuable clinical tool that assists healthcare professionals in risk stratification and decision-making, aiding in the timely and accurate diagnosis of this potentially life-threatening condition. It is important to note that the scoring system is just one component of a comprehensive diagnostic approach, and clinical judgment should always be exercised in conjunction with the scoring system's results.
For further information on the correct diagnosis and treatment of PE or DVT, please consult your hospital’s guidelines.
calculator, geneva, score, d-dimer, dimer, pe, dvt, pulmonary, embolism, deep, vein, thrombosisThe Geneva Score CalculatorThe Geneva Score0000
