title: Comparison of the revised Geneva score with the Wells rule for assessing clinical probability of pulmonary embolism.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  The revised Geneva score, a standardized clinical decision rule in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism (PE), was recently developed. The Wells clinical decision is widely used but lacks full standardization, as it includes subjective clinician's judgement. We have compared the performance of the revised Geneva score with the Wells rule, and their usefulness for ruling out PE in combination with D-dimer measurement.
  
  
  METHODS
  In 300 consecutive patients, the clinical probability of PE was assessed prospectively by the Wells rule and retrospectively using the revised Geneva score. Patients comprised a random sample from a single center, participating in a large prospective multicenter diagnostic study. The predictive accuracy of both scores was compared by area under the curve (AUC) of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The overall prevalence of PE was 16%. The prevalence of PE in the low-probability, intermediate-probability and high-probability categories as classified by the revised Geneva score was similar to that of the original derivation set. The performance of the revised Geneva score as measured by the AUC in a ROC analysis did not differ statistically from the Wells rule. After 3 months of follow-up, no patient classified into the low or intermediate clinical probability category by the revised Geneva score and a normal D-dimer result was subsequently diagnosed with acute venous thromboembolism.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  This study suggests that the performance of the revised Geneva score is equivalent to that of the Wells rule. In addition, it seems safe to exclude PE in patients by the combination of a low or intermediate clinical probability by the revised Geneva score and a normal D-dimer level. Prospective clinical outcome studies are needed to confirm this latter finding.
authors.affiliation: Section of Vascular Medicine, Department of General Internal Medicine - Endocrinology, LUMC, Leiden, The Netherlands. f.a.klok@lumc.nl
authors.forename: F A
authors.initials: FA
authors.lastname: Klok
authors.forename: E
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Kruisman
authors.forename: J
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Spaan
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Nijkeuter
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Righini
authors.forename: D
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Aujesky
authors.forename: P M
authors.initials: PM
authors.lastname: Roy
authors.forename: A
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Perrier
authors.forename: G
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Le Gal
authors.forename: M V
authors.initials: MV
authors.lastname: Huisman
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D019540:Area Under Curve; D003661:Decision Support Techniques; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D011237:Predictive Value of Tests; D015995:Prevalence; D011336:Probability; D011655:Pulmonary Embolism / Q000175:diagnosis*; D012372:ROC Curve