Revised Geneva Score (rGeneva) for risk-stratifying pulmonary embolism
The revised Geneva score predicts the pre-test probability of pulmonary embolism (PE).
Research authors: Le Gal G, Righini M, Roy PM, Sanchez O, Aujesky D, Bounameaux H, Perrier A.
Details Custom formula Study characteristics Files & References
★★★★
Model author
Model ID
341
Version
1.17
Revision date
2016-05-09
Specialty
MeSH terms
  • Clinical Prediction Rule
  • Embolism
  • Pulmonary Embolism
  • Embolism and Thrombosis
  • Model type
    Linear model (Calculation)
    Status
    public
    Rating
    Share
    Formula
    No Formula defined yet
    Condition Formula

    Additional information

    Consecutive patients admitted for clinically suspected pulmonary embolism were included in the study. Hormone replacement therapy was excluded because of the recent dramatic reduction in its prescription. To obtain a rule entirely based on clinical variables, the authors did not use the results of blood gas analysis, electrocardiography, and chest radiography. They also left out the likelihood of an alternative diagnosis compared with that of pulmonary embolism to achieve an entirely standardized score.

    Study Population

    Total population size: 965
    Males: {{ model.numberOfMales }}
    Females: {{ model.numberOfFemales }}

    Continuous characteristics

    Name Mean SD Unit
    Age 60.6 19.4 years
    Weight 72.6 16.1 kg
    Central temperature 36.9 0.8 degrees Celcius
    Heart rate 86.3 19.7 beats/min
    Respiratory rate 20.2 7.0 cycles/min
    Systolic blood pressure 140 23 mmHg
    Diastolic blood pressure 81 15 mmHg

    Categorical characteristics

    Name Subset / Group Nr. of patients
    Risk factors Patients with family history of DVT or PE 102
    Patients with personal history of DVT or PE 166
    Patients with known congestive heart failure 95
    Patients with previous stroke 29
    Patients with COPD 99
    Patients who had surgery, fracture, or both within 1 month 67
    Patients who were immobile within 1 month 165
    Patients with active malignant condition 89
    Patients currently using oral contraceptive 69
    Pregnant or postpartum patients 10
    Symptoms Syncope 68
    Recent cough 197
    Hemoptysis 43
    Dyspnea 637
    Chest pain 681
    Unilateral lower limp pain 138
    Clinical examination - signs related to PE Patients with chronic venous insufficiency 199
    Patients with varicose veins 227
    Patients with unilateral edema and pain on deep venous palpation 51
    Patients with abnormal chest auscultation 158
    Patients with neck vein distention 108

    Revised Geneva (rGeneva) score:
    ...
    points

    {{ resultSubheader }}

    {{ model.survival.PITTitle }}

    {{ model.survival.YNETitle }}

    Result
    Note
    Notes are only visible in the result download and will not be saved by Evidencio

    Revised Geneva (rGeneva) score: points

    {{ resultSubheader }}

    Outcome stratification

    Result interval {{ additionalResult.min }} to {{ additionalResult.max }}

    Conditional information

    Result interpretation

    Model performance upon external validation: 

    • In an external validation study by Le Gal et al (2006), 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 (≥11 points).
    • In an external validation study by Calisir et al (2009) including 148 patients, rates of PE in high, moderate, and low PE risk groups determined according to the Revised Geneva score were 83.3, 25.6, and 0%, respectively.
    • Penaloza et al (2013) reported a c-index of 0.66 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.70) for the revised Geneva score when applied in a retrospective study population of 1,038 patients (pulmonary embolism prevalence: 31.3%).

    {{ file.classification }}

    Calculations alone should never dictate patient care, and are no substitute for professional judgement. See our full disclaimer.

    Comments
    Rating
    Comment
    Please enter a comment of rating
    Comments are visible to anyone

    Model feedback

    No feedback yet 1 Comment {{ model.comments.length }} Comments
    Not rated | On {{ comment.created_at }} {{ comment.user.username }} a no longer registered author wrote:
    {{ comment.content }}
    logo

    Please sign in to enable Evidencio print features

    In order to use the Evidencio print features, you need to be logged in.
    If you don't have an Evidencio Community Account you can create your free personal account at:

    https://www.evidencio.com/registration

    Printed results - Examples {{ new Date().toLocaleString() }}


    Evidencio Community Account Benefits


    With an Evidencio Community account you can:

    • Create and publish your own prediction models.
    • Share your prediction models with your colleagues, research group, organization or the world.
    • Review and provide feedback on models that have been shared with you.
    • Validate your models and validate models from other users.
    • Find models based on Title, Keyword, Author, Institute, or MeSH classification.
    • Use and save prediction models and their data.
    • Use patient specific protocols and guidelines based on sequential models and decision trees.
    • Stay up-to-date with new models in your field as they are published.
    • Create your own lists of favorite models and topics.
    A personal Evidencio account is free, with no strings attached! Join us and help create clarity, transparency, and efficiency in the creation, validation, and use of medical prediction models.

    Disclaimer: Calculations alone should never dictate patient care, and are no substitute for professional judgement.