title: Prediction of pulmonary embolism in the emergency department: the revised Geneva score.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Diagnosis of pulmonary embolism requires clinical probability assessment. Implicit assessment is accurate but is not standardized, and current prediction rules have shortcomings.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To construct a simple score based entirely on clinical variables and independent from physicians' implicit judgment.
  
  
  METHODS
  Derivation and external validation of the score in 2 independent management studies on pulmonary embolism diagnosis.
  
  
  METHODS
  Emergency departments of 3 university hospitals in Europe.
  
  
  METHODS
  Consecutive patients admitted for clinically suspected pulmonary embolism.
  
  
  METHODS
  Collected data included demographic characteristics, risk factors, and clinical signs and symptoms suggestive of venous thromboembolism. The variables statistically significantly associated with pulmonary embolism in univariate analysis were included in a multivariate logistic regression model. Points were assigned according to the regression coefficients. The score was then externally validated in an independent cohort.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The score comprised 8 variables (points): age older than 65 years (1 point), previous deep venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism (3 points), surgery or fracture within 1 month (2 points), active malignant condition (2 points), unilateral lower limb pain (3 points), hemoptysis (2 points), heart rate of 75 to 94 beats/min (3 points) or 95 beats/min or more (5 points), and pain on lower-limb deep venous palpation and unilateral edema (4 points). In the validation set, the prevalence of pulmonary embolism was 8% in the low-probability category (0 to 3 points), 28% in the intermediate-probability category (4 to 10 points), and 74% in the high-probability category (> or =11 points).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Interobserver agreement for the score items was not studied.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The proposed score is entirely standardized and is based on clinical variables. It has sustained internal and external validation and should now be tested for clinical usefulness in an outcome study.
authors.affiliation: Brest University Hospital, Brest, France. gregoire.legal@chu-brest.fr
authors.forename: Grégoire
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Le Gal
authors.forename: Marc
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Righini
authors.forename: Pierre-Marie
authors.initials: PM
authors.lastname: Roy
authors.forename: Olivier
authors.initials: O
authors.lastname: Sanchez
authors.forename: Drahomir
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Aujesky
authors.forename: Henri
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Bounameaux
authors.forename: Arnaud
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Perrier
mesh_terms: D000368:Aged; D000465:Algorithms; D003661:Decision Support Techniques; D004636:Emergency Service, Hospital / Q000592:standards; D005060:Europe; D006801:Humans; D016015:Logistic Models; D017063:Outcome Assessment, Health Care; D011237:Predictive Value of Tests; D011655:Pulmonary Embolism / Q000175:diagnosis*; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D012307:Risk Factors