Comparative Study
Journal Article
Validation Study
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Assessing clinical probability of pulmonary embolism: prospective validation of the simplified Geneva score.

Essentials The simplified Geneva score allows easier pretest probability assessment of pulmonary embolism (PE). We prospectively validated this score in the ADJUST-PE management outcome study. The study shows that it is safe to manage patients with suspected PE according to this score. The simplified Geneva score is now ready for use in routine clinical practice.

SUMMARY: Background Pretest probability assessment by a clinical prediction rule (CPR) is an important step in the management of patients with suspected pulmonary embolism (PE). A limitation to the use of CPRs is that their constitutive variables and corresponding number of points are difficult to memorize. A simplified version of the Geneva score (i.e. attributing one point to each variable) has been proposed but never been prospectively validated. Aims Prospective validation of the simplified Geneva score (SGS) and comparison with the previous version of the Geneva score (GS). Methods In the ADJUST-PE study, which had the primary aim of validating the age-adjusted D-dimer cut-off, the SGS was prospectively used to determine the pretest probability in a subsample of 1621 study patients. Results Overall, PE was confirmed in 294 (18.1%) patients. Using the SGS, 608 (37.5%), 980 (60.5%) and 33 (2%) were classified as having a low, intermediate and high clinical probability. Corresponding prevalences of PE were 9.7%, 22.4% and 45.5%; 490 (30.1%) patients with low or intermediate probability had a D-dimer level below 500 μg L-1 and 653 (41.1%) had a negative D-dimer test according to the age-adjusted cut-off. Using the GS, the figures were 491(30.9%) and 650 (40.9%). None of the patients considered as not having PE based on a low or intermediate SGS and negative D-dimer had a recurrent thromboembolic event during the 3-month follow-up. Conclusions The use of SGS has similar efficiency and safety to the GS in excluding PE in association with the D-dimer test.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app