 |
|
Simplification of the Revised Geneva Score for Assessing Clinical Probability of Pulmonary Embolism
Frederikus A. Klok, MD;
Inge C. M. Mos, MD;
Mathilde Nijkeuter, MD, PhD;
Marc Righini, MD, PhD;
Arnaud Perrier, MD, PhD;
Grégoire Le Gal, MD, PhD;
Menno V. Huisman, MD, PhD
Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(19):2131-2136.
Background The revised Geneva score is a fully standardized clinical decision rule (CDR) in the diagnostic workup of patients with suspected pulmonary embolism (PE). The variables of the decision rule have different weights, which could lead to miscalculations in an acute setting. We have validated a simplified version of the revised Geneva score.
Methods Data from 1049 patients from 2 large prospective diagnostic trials that included patients with suspected PE were used and combined to validate the simplified revised Geneva score. We constructed the simplified CDR by attributing 1 point to each item of the original CDR and compared the diagnostic accuracy of the 2 versions by a receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. We also assessed the clinical utility of the simplified CDR by evaluating the safety of ruling out PE on the basis of the combination of either a low-intermediate clinical probability (using a 3-level scheme) or a "PE unlikely" assessment (using a dichotomized rule) with a normal result on a highly sensitive D-dimer test.
Results The complete study population had an overall prevalence of venous thromboembolism of 23%. The diagnostic accuracy between the 2 CDRs did not differ (area under the curve for the revised Geneva score was 0.75 [95% confidence interval, 0.71-0.78] vs 0.74 [0.70-0.77] for the simplified revised Geneva score). During 3 months of follow-up, no patient with a combination of either a low (0%; 95% confidence interval, 0.0%-1.7%) or intermediate (0%; 0.0%-2.8%) clinical probability, or a "PE unlikely" assessment (0%; 0.0%-1.2%) with the simplified score and a normal result of a D-dimer test was diagnosed as having venous thromboembolism.
Conclusion This study suggests that simplification of the revised Geneva score does not lead to a decrease in diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility, which should be confirmed in a prospective study.
Author Affiliations: Section of Vascular Medicine, Department of General Internal Medicine–Endocrinology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands (Drs Klok, Mos, Nijkeuter, and Huisman); Divisions of Angiology and Haemostasis (Dr Righini) and General Internal Medicine (Dr Perrier), Geneva University Hospital, Geneva, Switzerland; and Division of Internal Medicine and Pulmonology, Hopital de la Cavale Blanche and Université de Bretagne Occidentale, Brest, France (Dr Le Gal).
 CiteULike  Connotea  Delicious  Digg  Facebook  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter
What's this?
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
Clinical Decision Rules for Excluding Pulmonary Embolism: A Meta-analysis
Lucassen et al.
ANN INTERN MED 2011;155:448-460.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Performance of 4 Clinical Decision Rules in the Diagnostic Management of Acute Pulmonary Embolism: A Prospective Cohort Study
Douma et al.
ANN INTERN MED 2011;154:709-718.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
A Simple Score to Predict the Outcome of Severe Malaria in Adults
Hanson et al.
Clinical Infectious Diseases 2010;50:679-685.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Update on acute pulmonary embolism
Sanchez et al.
Eur Respir Rev 2009;18:137-147.
FULL TEXT
D-Dimers and Efficacy of Clinical Risk Estimation Algorithms: Sensitivity in Evaluation of Acute Pulmonary Embolism
Gupta et al.
Am. J. Roentgenol. 2009;193:425-430.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
An Easier Diagnostic Tool to Rule Out PE? Maybe.
Journal Watch Hospital Medicine 2009;2009:1-1.
FULL TEXT
|
