PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
October 27, 2008Archives of Internal Medicine338 citations

Simplification of the Revised Geneva Score for Assessing Clinical Probability of Pulmonary Embolism

View Full Paper
FKFrederikus A. KlokIMI.C.M. MosMNMathilde Nijkeuter

Structured PICO

Does the simplified revised Geneva score maintain diagnostic accuracy compared to the original revised Geneva score in patients with suspected pulmonary embolism?

P
Population
1049 patients with suspected pulmonary embolism from 2 large prospective diagnostic trials
I
Intervention
Simplified revised Geneva score (attributing 1 point to each item of the original clinical decision rule)
C
Comparator
Original revised Geneva score
O
Outcome
Diagnostic accuracy (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve) and clinical utility (safety of ruling out PE based on low-intermediate probability or 'PE unlikely' assessment with normal highly sensitive D-dimer test)surrogate

A simplified revised Geneva score (1 point per item) maintains similar diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility as the original score for ruling out pulmonary embolism when combined with a normal D-dimer test.

Limitations

  • Retrospective validation requiring confirmation in a prospective study

Abstract

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.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Klok et al. (2008) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a03425198cafe0df5757d02https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.168.19.2131
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper